Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2016 [1].

An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory

[edit]
Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A short textbook published in 2010 may seem like a very odd subject for a featured article nomination, but Alasdair Cochrane's first book was actually one of the first books exploring animal ethics from the perspective of political theory, something which has created a real buzz in certain corners of academic ethics/political theory, spawning numerous books, articles, theses, special issues, edited collections and even a dedicated journal. The article is fairly short, but I hope you will agree that it is comprehensive. I must thank SlimVirgin for a GA review, and hope you will enjoy reading the article. All comments are welcome. This is probably a WikiCup nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sainsf

[edit]

Very interesting, will be commenting shortly... Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great prose, but I had to do nitpicks ;) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
Background
  • It is good to begin with the full name of the author (and link it) when you begin with the main article.
  • The Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics...Garner and Martha Nussbaum. This part belongs more to reception, the time after it was published. In this section we discuss the time before and when the book became a reality.
Synopsis
Reception
Other points
@Sainsf: With thanks for your comments; I'll get to them properly tomorrow. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't find any more issues with the prose. Must make an awesome FA, just remember my suggestion about direct quotes from the book. Good luck! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SlimVirgin

[edit]

Hi Josh, this is very similar to the version that was promoted to GA. I wonder whether it needs to be expanded a little for FA. For example, I would like to see just a bit more explanation as to why he rejects the feminist positions as providing a basis for obligations to animals. For example:

  • You write that Cochrane rejects "the idea, taken from ecofeminist theorists, that domination of women and domination of animals are both due to an ideal of domination over nature." Whose work does he cite, how would you unpack "due to an ideal of domination over nature," and how does he find their arguments lacking?
  • More needs to be said to explain Adams ("Second is Carol J. Adams's argument that exaltation of meat-eating serves to oppress women") and why Cochrane rejects her arguments.
  • It isn't clear what "Third is through the use of language" refers to in this context and what Cochrane is rejecting.
  • Re: objectification. "Cochrane … argues that the oppression of women and animals are not necessarily linked." How does he argue that?
  • The section concludes: "Of all the traditions considered in the book, Cochrane is most critical of feminism," citing Garner, but Garner doesn't say that. He writes that Cochrane is "harsher on the claims of some traditions—the feminist care ethic in particular …"

SarahSV (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: Thanks for taking the time to offer some comments; I'll reply to your suggestions properly tomorrow. As an initial reply, I'd certainly could expand the synopsis section, but I wanted to keep it brief. Do you perhaps think I should expand the coverage of all chapters, or do you think I should focus in on feminism given reviewers' comments about Cochrane's coverage? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would say all the sections could use some clarification (not necessarily expansion). Looking at utilitarianism, for example, you would have to be familiar with the arguments to understand that section. Why is it historically important for animals, what does it mean to say it has an egalitarian nature, and why is that a strength? I think it needs to be unpacked so that readers not familiar with it will understand.
There is also this: "He closes by arguing that, if the book's claims are correct, treatment of animals should be considered one of the most pressing political questions today." That was something I asked about during the GAN. It really isn't clear which of the book's claims it refers to, and why those claims would make treatment of animals one of the most pressing political questions. SarahSV (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, this is very valuable; I'll have a rejig and see what I can do. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Checkingfax

[edit]

Hi, J Milburn.

  • The Bibliography was throwing one CS1 hidden error but there turned out to be more like 10 cite templates that needed work with the authors and editors as seen here.
  • Bullet point 15 in the Bibliography is in plain text and should be converted to a cite template.
Converted. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Converted again from non-citation style to citation template style per WP:CITEVAR. Changed it from cite book to cite journal per Josh.

I will be happy to review this further when the FA review is further along. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: Thanks for your efforts, but I'm afraid I have reverted your edits. Unless I'm missing something, you're "cleaning" things by changing my citation style, which is not something which should be done without discussion. I use citation templates to help with consistent formatting; they're not an end in themselves. If you're really concerned about my use of the templates, I'd rather just drop them altogether. (Relatedly: The plain-text reference would throw up errors if I put it into a citation template, despite the fact that "forthcoming" is the correct date, and the DOIs you tagged as dead are fine- perhaps there's something wrong with your script?) Josh Milburn (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a note to anyone watching, Checkingfax has reverted me again, and promised an explanation. I am not happy with the citations at this time, but await the explanation. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't easy to see what was changed, because Checkingfax has added whitespace under the headings, which throws the diff off. [2] SarahSV (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The two things that are bothering me are mentioned on my talk page. (By the way, I have not yet finished dealing with your comments, Sarah; I stepped away from the article for this evening to give Checkingfax time to respond. Thanks for your patience.) Josh Milburn (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of advancing this review, I'm willing to leave Checkingfax's changes (including the change to the article's citation style), but I am still not satisfied that his/her actions were appropriate. Conversation about this continues on my talk page, but does not need to clutter up this page. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Josh. For the record I did one rollback. I immediately contacted you on your talk page to avoid any panic or extra chatter here. I promised to restore your minor edits that got bombed in the process and I did when I got back from my appointment. There were a couple of resulting issues which editor Sainsf, you and I collaboratively remedied. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox checklist
[edit]
  • Alt text: Pending
  • Citation bot: Passed
  • Disambig links: Passed
  • External links: Passed
  • Redirects: Passed
  • Reflinks: Passed

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A fascinating article, very well written and evidently comprehensive. It is a good sign that I am left with no idea where, if anywhere, the nominator's sympathies lie between the various competing theories. Very happy to support. Three exceptionally minor comments, which don't affect my support:

  • Background and publication
    • Mildly surprising, and not especially welcome, to see the American "advisor" instead of the English "adviser", but if that's the man's official job title so be it.
  • Academic reception
    • I wasn't quite sure why we have "On the other hand" before S O'Sullivan's comments. The four words led me to expect a hostile review to follow D Dombrowski's favourable one, but both are enthusiastic.
  • Releases
    • To avoid the possibility of WP:DATED, I'd be inclined to change "The book is available in paperback..." to "The book was published in paperback..."

That's my lot. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. The references in the version I looked at (at 13.24 today) look fine to me at first glance, and I don't imagine that if any change is needed it will be anything more than minor tweaking, to fit the nominator's preferred layout. A most stimulating read. Tim riley talk 12:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Tim; thoroughly appreciated. I followed Cochrane with "advisor", but it's not an official title. I've switched it. I've dropped "On the other hand", and made the change concerning "available"/"published". Josh Milburn (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refs
You have "Cochrane 2007b" as a ref, yet there's no "Cochrane 2007a". As far as I can see, there's only one source for Cochrane in 2007 (the PhD thesis). Do you not have a handle (hdl) for the thesis? Singora (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good catch; there was a 2007a, but I hadn't added it to the bibliography. It's there now! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image

  • Would suggest changing the Cochrane and and Garner captions to either "X, pictured in 2013" or "X (pictured) in 2013"
  • "File:An_Introduction_to_Animals_and_Political_Theory.jpg: I wouldn't call iStockphoto.com a "cover artist" - do you mean the site is the source of the owl image? Suggest rewording. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

[edit]

I'll read this today and offer nitpicks later. CassiantoTalk 08:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Sorry I didn't get round to this. It appears you didn't need me anyway. A glowing example of how a FA should be done. Nice work Josh. CassiantoTalk 21:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's appreciated! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon

[edit]

Interesting read, thank you. Having just read the introduction of the textbook, I think something is missing from this article. The textbook's introduction brings the issues to life whereas this article just says "animal rights". I think the article would be more interesting if it expands on it a little bit, maybe just a sentence or two. Either in Synopsis or background.

Happy to make an effort, but could you clarify this? You want me to expand a bit more on the book's introduction? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clear. I'd like to see a bit more on the topic of animal rights. The textbook does bring that topic to life right away in the introduction. What kind of issues are we talking about? Edwininlondon (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comments below:

  • nonhuman or non-human? In the body it has the noun as non-humans. Should also be consistent with non-ideal or nonideal
  • introducing his interest-based theory of animal rights - how many times can you introduce something? and wasn't it actually introduced in his thesis?
    • I take your point. I've tweaked this a little.
  • series's or series'?
    • Series's x for "x belonging to a single series" and series' x for "x belonging to multiple series". (Similar for species; it's an unusual case of a word ending in s for which the singular and plural form are the same. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alasdair Cochrane, (pictured) in 2013 --> I find the parentheses quite odd
  • after which Cochrane defends the account both against arguments in defence of speciesism and against critics --> could benefit from a rewrite, hard to grasp what he defends against
  • the captions seem not balanced: Adams gets a full sentence, Garner nothing but a name. I'd aim for a middle ground, e.g. along the lines of "Robert Garner, a political theorist who reviewed Cochrane's book". I don't think think pictured in 2013 is necessary;if it was 1963 then yes.
  • Maybe keep the order of reviewers consistent in Academic reception: Garner is mentioned first but then Cooke's review is first given.
  • "Cooke considered Cochrane's own.." --> I got confused here since Cooke's review had already been dealt with, so why are we going back to Cooke?
  • "Seymour argued that Cochrane's critique was superficial or "[missed] the point entirely". --> this leaves me wondering why. Any chance a succinct summary of arguments can be given?
  • Releases --> Would Formats be more appropriate for a book?

Edwininlondon (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this; I'll get to your comments soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again; replied inline. I'll get to making the fixes I've held off in the coming days. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl

[edit]
  • I wonder if the "Feminism" section has too much text without immediate citation. Perhaps some additional citations to cover the large block of text in there would be a good addition? Also, this section consists purely of one long paragraph; perhaps consider division into two? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Garner said that the book came "highly recommended"; he considered it "a very fine book"," has "book" repeated in fairly quick succession. How about replacing the first instance with "work", "volume", or "tome"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for this; I'll get to your comments in the coming days. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to delegates and reviewers: Thanks for waiting; I promise I will give the comments the attention they deserve. Things are all over the place for me right now (I'm moving house today, for example, and I am at the very end of my doctorate) so, although I'm about, I'm not necessarily in the right headspace to make these corrections. Thanks again, Josh Milburn (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cwmhiraeth

[edit]

I note you are a bit busy in real life at the moment, so no rush! I read the article with interest and have a few minor comments: -

  • The sentence starting "After introducing the purpose of the book ..." is a bit long and complex and I had to go back and read it again to establish what the "history of thinking" was all about.
  • "Chapter three considers utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, Cochrane argues, ..." - This could be rephrased so as to avoid repeating the word "utilitarianism".
  • "This is the claim the domination of women and animals are both due to a patriarchal elevation of the "rational" over the "natural"." - This sentence would benefit from an additional "that".
  • I ask myself the question "Who is a featured article on a book meant for? Is it for the knowledgeable who understand the implications of the terms used (as this one does), or is it for the general public who lack the specialist knowledge?" As a member of the latter group, I would like to see some brief explanations on the topics utilitarianism, liberalism, communitarianism, Marxism and feminism. For example the sentence "Chapter three considers utilitarianism." could continue as "Chapter three considers utilitarianism, the concept that ..."
  • Thank you. I am happy with the alterations made and now support this nomination on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Josh, I'd like to wrap this up and I've seen a few edits from you around the traps, could you just address Cwmhiraeth's points? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian; so sorry about this. I have literally just moved halfway around the world to Ontario, so my time is all over the place; I'll make every effort to find an hour or two to put into this in the next week. I confess that this took longer than I had anticipated due to the citation issue, otherwise I would have held off nominating. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, we can wait. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now made the changes suggested in Cwmhiraeth and MBO's comments (including expanding on what is meant by "communitarianism" etc. as suggested by Cwm- a good idea!) and added a little about the introduction, as suggested by Edwin. Hopefully, the various expansions and clarifications will have responded to SV's concerns. Again, I thank all the reviewers for their comments and patience! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/An_Introduction_to_Animals_and_Political_Theory/archive1&oldid=1138454417"