Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alfred North Whitehead/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Alfred North Whitehead

Nominator(s): Joseph Petek (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completed a near-total rewrite of this article on November 20th. It then passed GA review on November 24th, and I have spent considerable time after the successful GA pass to address additional comments from the GA reviewer. Some of these changes were to the substance of the article, but the majority addressed formatting concerns – I have tried to consistently apply the Chicago Manual of Style.

The number of featured articles related to philosophy is depressingly small, so it is difficult for me to assess the worthiness of the current entry for the FA distinction, but it seems to me to meet all the criteria.

I must make one note on my availability. In case this nomination lasts longer than twelve days, reviewers should know that I will be away for the holiday break from the night of December 21st to the 27th. I may still be able to address some concerns during this period, but I will be away from my books, and so will likely be unable to check most citation-related problems. However, I will certainly respond quickly and thoroughly to all concerns upon my return. Joseph Petek (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Some of the Influenced entries are not sourced or explained in the article. (See also discussions at Template talk:Infobox person about the use of these parameters in the more general template)

I will consider what to do about this tomorrow. The box was there when I began editing the article and I have not changed it. Either I'll delete it or find references for all the people mentioned, then leave another note here. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have now sourced every name in the "Influenced" and "Influenced by" infobox. I also alphabetized both lists, because they were getting a little out of hand. I subtracted a few names for which I could not immediately find a reference (I'm sure they're out there, but I could spend forever on this), but I actually added many more. Joseph Petek (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"At the time George Boole's algebra of logic made a strong counterpoint to ordinary number algebra, so the term "universal" served to calm strained sensibilities" - source?

I deleted this statement because I could not find a source for it (not written by me). I did source a few other statements in this section while I was looking at it. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"education should be the exact opposite of the multidisciplinary, value-free school model" - source?

Sourced. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless some source has noted things like "ironically", they should be excluded

Here I disagree. "Ironically" only appears once, and it seems to me to be an entirely appropriate use. I had just quoted Whitehead saying that he was hugely ignorant of metaphysics. The fact that he ended up being one of the 20th century's foremost metaphysicians is the very definition of irony, and I don't think it stylistically inappropriate to say so (or maybe some other more innocuous word, like "surprisingly"? idk). But if it's really important to you, I can still remove it. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Whitehead regarded metaphysical investigations as essential to both good science and good philosophy" - source?

Sourced. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping that part of the check there: please look for other places where sources may be needed. Also, I find myself rather uncomfortable with the way in which "we" is used in some places - do go through to make sure the tone remains encyclopedic throughout, before another reviewer takes a look

I have removed all instances of "we" and "our." As for other statements that may need references, I can take another pass at it, but I believe it's well-sourced as it stands. I did delete that once sentence from the Universal Algebra section that you mentioned, and that was my bad for not double-checking a statement that someone else had written. But for all other sections below this one I was the primary writer, and in my estimation, if any sentence is not referenced it is because it is repeating information that has already been cited (for instance, I do quite a bit of repetition in the philosophy section to help further explain concepts), or will be sourced with a quote in the sentence following, or is very unlikely to be challenged. Other editors will have differing opinions on which statements need references. I am happy to provide references for any statement which any other editor calls to my attention. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LAYOUT, Further reading and External links should appear after References, and there should be no duplication between these sections

Sections have been re-arranged and I have removed all but two instances of repetition between the lists, both of which are negotiable. I left the Schilpp volume in "Further reading," simply because it is a citation for the full volume rather than a specific article. I also left the external link to the Center for Process Studies. Even though it had been cited already and mentioned in the article, this is the single largest resource on the web for Whitehead-related research, so my feeling is that it should stay in. Again, both of these are negotiable. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check that books consistently include publisher location; FN3, for example, does not

Done. I caught a few others in addition to the one mentioned here.

In some cases it will be necessary to include state or country to disambiguate locations, for example for the two Cambridges (UK and US)

Hmm. There were only three instances where "Cambridge" was the US one. In those three instances I inserted "Massachusetts" after "Cambridge." I have left the others alone. Is this satisfactory? I don't normally see countries or states listed in Chicago Style citation, possibly because the name of the publisher tends to disambiguate (e.g., a Google search for "Cambridge University Press" will tell you that it is in England). Say the word, though, and I'll do it. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some works are missing their ISBNs - why?

By "some" you mean "most"! I have not been routinely listing ISBNs as part of my referencing. I have been following Chicago Style, in which they are not required. Are they really necessary in every instance? I'm not sure why they would be. And are you talking about all cited books, or just the primary bibliography and further reading sections? Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FN28: article/review title?

Fixed. Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FN66: why not just include both sets of page numbers in the first citation, rather than making a new full citation to the same work in the same footnote?

Actually, you misread here. The references were from two different books ;-) (they are now ~~FN55 and FN68~~ FN96 and FN108). However, I did take the opportunity to split all but one citation that listed multiple sources (the one I left alone had a short note that applied to both, and neither source was used again). Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Publication names like the Vancouver Sun should be italicized

Done... I think. Question: Should I be italicizing organizations that are not really publishers? For instance: Center for Process Studies, Institute for the Postmodern Development of China, Center for Environmental Philosophy, etc.? And how about websites, like Sunypress.edu (currently ~~FN123~~ FN158)? Joseph Petek (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping this part of the check here. Oppose for now pending nominator response and edits to the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm afraid that with no new comments for three weeks, even allowing for the distractions of the festive season, this review appears to have stalled. I'll therefore be archiving it shortly, and it can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period per FAC instructions. Looking briefly over the prose, however, I'd suggest that it be copyedited and go through Peer Review before returning here, as some of the phrasing seems more appropriate to an essay than an encyclopedic article, e.g. "This is not to say that", "Indeed, it may not be inappropriate", "To put it another way", "It must be emphasized, however", etc. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.