Template:Did you know nominations/History of philosophy

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

History of philosophy

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the history of philosophy in the Western world originated in Ancient Greece with the Presocratics and their inquiry into the fundamental nature of the cosmos? Source:
  • ALT1: ... that the history of philosophy in India is characterized by its combined interest in the nature of reality, the ways of arriving at knowledge, and the spiritual question of how to reach enlightenment? Source:
  • ALT2: ... that in the history of philosophy in China, the three main schools are Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism? Source:
  • Reviewed: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Ashley_Graham_(Resident_Evil)
  • Comment:

References

Sources

• Duignan, Brian, ed. (15 August 2010). Ancient Philosophy: From 600 BCE to 500 CE. The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc. ISBN 978-1-61530-141-6.
• Graham, Jacob N. (2023). "Ancient Greek Philosophy". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 25 May 2023.
• Grayling, A. C. (20 June 2019). The History of Philosophy. Penguin UK. ISBN 978-0-241-98086-6.
• Smart, Ninian (2008). World philosophies (Rev. 2nd ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-41188-2.
• Zhang, Xuezhi (26 April 2021). History of Chinese Philosophy in the Ming Dynasty. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-981-15-8963-8.

Created by Phlsph7 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/History of philosophy; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Comment Phlsph7 this article is not eligible for DYK as it was not created or expanded five fold in the last 7 days, see WP:DYKCRIT. You could bring the article to good article status and renominate it then. TSventon (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  @TSventon: Thanks for the prompt response and the explanation. The article was a redirect for over 7 years. The redirect was replaced yesterday by an article, see this diff. It might be a little confusing because the history of the draft was merged into the article history. I wasn't sure whether to select "created" or "expanded fivefold" in such a case. But I think it should be eligible. Please let me know if there is a misunderstanding on my side. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  this is the version prior to my changes. The subsequent changes in the history were imported from the draft yesterday. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, I have changed my review to a comment. This is an unusual situation, so it would have been helpful to include the explanation in the nomination. TSventon (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'll keep that in mind for future nominations. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment WP:LEAD states an article should contain not more than four paragraphs. Currently, the article has six. I think you could merge short paragraphs and reduce them to four. Cheers! Chanaka L (talk) 09:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  See also the discussion at Talk:History_of_philosophy#a_shorter_lead. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Article was converted from a redirect and moved to mainspace around the time of the nomination (as a future note, those are both options in the nomination dropdown), and is certainly long enough. Article as a whole passes DYK standards with flying colours ("edge cases around MOS in the lead" are not in the DYK criteria). The hooks are good for this kind of broad subject, reflected in the article, and verifiable to reliable (mostly non-FUTON, but trustworthy) sources. QPQ done. Thank you for working on this important article! Vaticidalprophet 14:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)