Talk:Teleological argument/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk • contribs) 16:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The prose is good, at times though it seems too technical. I made a few changes to remove terms like "panglossian," feel free to change it back if you think I changed the meaning. There one issue is redudancy between the lead and the history section, explained below.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Good work here, but there are some quotes without inline citations, see below.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
My suggestion here is that you include a section at the beginning giving a general overview of the argument, like at Augustinian theodicy or cosmological argument, before going into the historical detail. That's not necessary, though; Ontological argument goes straight into Anselm's formulation, since that's the classic statement of the argument. It's up to you, even without changes this criteria is met. I also think it would be good to explain the term telos and why this is called the teleological argument.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Very good, covers both sides.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Article has been stable at least since April.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
No issues.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Article looks good except for two issues, I'm placing it on hold until those are addressed. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response! Pass. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate issues

These are problems with the GA criteria, I'll pass the article as soon as they are addressed.

Prose: The beginning of the history section repeats much of the lead verbatim; rewrite or condense either the lead or the history section.

Quotes: Sources needed for "Tennant concedes that naturalistic accounts such as evolutionary theory may explain each of the individual adaptations he cites, but he insists that in this case the whole exceeds the sum of its parts: naturalism can explain each adaptation but not their totality." and "insists that inductive inference cannot justify belief in extended objects."

Thank you very much for reviewing this article. I think I have resolved all these immediate issues. You can see above we had a discussion about the length of the lead, which resulted in a longer rather than shorter lead, but we never got around to bringing the History introduction into line. I have done that now. I think I have also clarified the quotation references. I shall look at your other issues as well. Myrvin (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

These are ideas to consider if you want to improve the article further.

The argument from intelligent design appears to have begun with Socrates - This is pretty redundant as the article stands now; if you fix the lead/history section problem it might be all right.

"cosmos" which was introduced in this time - what time do you mean?

because of the anthropic principle Please explain what the anthropic principle is.

This is consistent with the fact that both Xenophon and Aristotle remarked specifically that going into the market place and asking questions of craftsmen was a new approach Socrates took to philosophy, in contrast to predecessors, and it is consistent with this then that both Plato and Xenophon use the word demiurge (craftsman) to describe the intelligent being responsible for the natural order. - This seems like a little too much detail; I guess it is meant to support the claim that Socrates was the first to compare God to a craftsman, but I think it is unnecessary.

would be tremendously informed given the telos This sentence is confusing to me, not sure what it means.

natural pleroma is Either explain what pleroma is or use a different term.

You include the names of several scholars without saying who they are; I'm not sure what the usual practice is in philosophy articles, but I would be included to say something like Philosopher Barry Holtz instead of just Barry Holtz. The ones I noticed were Barry Holtz, P.G. Pati, John Wright, Louis Loeb, and Eric Rust.

The line from Hume about an infant deity, the object of derision to his superiors, is followed by quote expressing the opposite idea.

Could the 2nd paragraph of the Other criticisms section be merged with the Hume section? I think both sections are talking about teleology as a false analogy.

Done most of the above. The names is a longer job. The merging needs thinking about. Myrvin (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]