Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hilary Putnam/archive1

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

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC) [1].

Hilary Putnam

Notified: User talk:Lacatosias, User talk:BardRapt, WikiProject Chicago, WikiProject Philosophy, WikiProject Cognitive science, WikiProject Neuroscience, WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, WikiProject University of California Dec 2021, talk page notice 28 June 2022

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because concerns were raised over 6months ago and are still unadressed. Z1720 left an extensive list on the talk page, including issues with uncited text, lack of hqrs, and lack of specificity in some areas (t · c) buidhe 02:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

XOR'easter is working at the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The citation style wandered all over the place, including a mix of template and various different manual choices. I've slowly been trying to standardize them. XOR'easter (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think the citation style is uniform now. Some entries probably have DOI's and/or JSTOR identifiers that still need to be looked up and added, but at least now that can be done by plugging into a template. XOR'easter (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think I've done the most tedious part of the maintenance. Of the issues raised on the talk page, the citation style is now consistent, encyclopedia.com has been replaced, and ownership of the blog has been confirmed. I disagree with the idea that the article should be organized wholly chronologically, as that would weave in and out of different philosophical subjects. Having a chronological part and a conceptual/thematic part makes more sense to me. XOR'easter (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable so far to get a copy of the L. P. Hickey book that is cited several times. I doubt that anything cited to it is wrong, or at least grossly wrong, since those statements match what is said in other sources (e.g., the NYT obituary) when they do overlap. XOR'easter (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are not big source-to-text integrity concerns here; it's not an article that has been hit by everyone with a keyboard, and there's no reason to believe the FA version had sourcing issues. (It was a miserable FAC, but not for sourcing reasons.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be on the safe side, I supplemented that reference with the obituary in the Guardian.

The article had nothing about Putnam's work in the philosophy of quantum physics, which would be enough to disqualify it from being FA on comprehensiveness grounds. I added a brief section on the topic. It is difficult to say more on it, since the subject matter is doubly esoteric (physics and philosophy), and Putnam was rather infamous for never taking the same viewpoint twice. XOR'easter (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there another list of his doctoral students somewhere, besides this? XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know if it's "Wikipedia's best work" or not, but I think it's in better shape than it was, with the problems that had been identified either fixed or only debatably problematic. XOR'easter (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks XOR ! Buidhe can you wrangle in other reviewers to look at this? The original FAC gives me such bad memories that the idea of combing through this article gives me hives. I'd rather not be the one to have to comb through it in gory detail; happy to peek in after others have been through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I finally looked at that, and ... yikes. XOR'easter (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided that I have no idea how to cover Putnam's doctoral students (a topic raised on the Talk page). There is no definitive list that I can find, and thus no good starting point for writing a summary. XOR'easter (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps we can agree to not add them at all, unless an individual student is so prominent, and mentioned by enough secondary sources, that it would be WP:UNDUE not to mention that individual. This issue is an artifact of infoboxes we don't need. Because someone stuck a stupid parameter in an infobox template, we're left with information that does nothing to increase our understanding of the subject; we aren't obliged to use an infobox, or that parameter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair. XOR'easter (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe we're at a month, and this is your nom. Are you able to revisit, and wrangle in others who might opine? Guidance or declarations or feedback are needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like XOR'easter has improved the article alot. I'm not immediately seeing anything that would lead me to oppose it. However, I know next to nothing about the subject matter and have limited time to learn it. (t · c) buidhe 17:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 are you able to add anything here relative to your original list on talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Since I made that list several months ago, I decided to review this article. Here are some thoughts below:

The lede is quite long. While the article can justify 3-4 paragraphs per MOS:LEDELENGTH, the current lede is really pushing those boundaries. Any ideas on what can potentially be removed or rephrased?
"a publication of the American Communist Party, from 1936 to 1946 (when he became disillusioned with communism)." I'm assuming that the parenthesis is about his father's disillusionment with communism although I was unclear when I first read it. If his father's communist disillusionment is not relevant to Putnam's life, then I think the parenthesis can be removed.
I added a citation needed tag at the end of a paragraph and some quotes.
In "Metaphilosophy and ontology" why are "internal realism" and "pragmatic realism" bolded?
I think "Metaphilosophy and ontology" can be organised more effectively into fewer paragraphs.
"Criticism" sections have fallen out of use on Wikipedia due to POV concerns. Perhaps this section can be reworked into an analysis section of his theories?
Why is "Sardonic comment" a high quality source?
Ref 1, "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" and ref 38, ""Hilary Putnam Wins the Rescher Prize for 2015!". need an access dates.

Unfortunately, the information about his theories is too technical for my understanding, so it's hard for me to evaluate that. However, I think the above gives some additional things that can be improved. Z1720 (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "internal realism" and "pragmatic realism" are bolded because internal realism and pragmatic realism redirect to that section (MOS:BOLDREDIRECT). Sardonic comment is Hilary Putnam's blog, I haven't looked at what it's being used to cite though so I'm not sure if it's being used appropriately or not. I've fixed some of the smaller things listed above but the main ones still need working on. Alduin2000 (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes, sardoniccomment is his blog, and I added proof of that some months back (to one of the citations if I recall correctly) .. it is being used appropriately (last I checked). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've redistributed the wealth of the "Criticism" section to the other sections, and I moved some of the details from the lede to the main text. XOR'easter (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't tried a major reorganization of "Metaphilosophy and ontology", but I did join some short paragraphs. XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about sourcing on talk from Alduin2000. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC to keep the process on track. FARC does not preclude further work and that the article's star still might be saved.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've started trying to fix some of the sourcing issues I raised by adding additional secondary sources. I noticed that there is some repetition on the various realisms Putnam subscribed to throughout his life (e.g. direct realism, internal realism etc.), especially between the Epistemology, Metaphilosophy and ontology, and Neopragmatism and Wittgenstein sections. I've been trying to figure out how to merge all of this together in a way that makes sense, and what section would be best to merge it all to. Does anyone else have any ideas about this? Alduin2000 (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had a good idea here. Perhaps the material in "Neopragmatism and Wittgenstein" can be redistributed to other sections. XOR'easter (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, style and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like edits are being conducted to the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alduin2000 has put in a considerable amount of work, and has a better sense than I do about where and how to find secondary sourcing for many of these topics. Once he's happy, I figure I'll be happy. (I've read Putnam because of his philosophy-of-quantum-mechanics writings, and I think the paragraph I added gives a fair account of that. Otherwise, I tend to trust others' judgments.) XOR'easter (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment following up on this: I see that the article has not had major edits since Oct. @XOR'easter: is this ready for additional reviews? Sorry if I have pinged the wrong person. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are six places marked as needing non-primary sources. I think the other issues raised above have been addressed, more or less, so maybe it's time for a round of reviewing? I'll ping Alduin2000 for further input. XOR'easter (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on Putnam so I can't assess the article 100% but the sourcing and some of the structure is better now at least. I'm a lot busier recently so I've not been able to finish the sourcing, not sure when/if I'll be able to do it. Alduin2000 (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The lead is still too long and full of cites. There are still primary sources. Desertarun (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. No siginficant edits for two to three months, maintenance tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, regretful. Despite some significant improvements earlier, the article still has outstanding maintenance tags six months after nomination and verifiability issues such as one paragraph cited to three entire books, no page numbers given. (t · c) buidhe 07:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, sadly. Further work is needed, but doesn't appear to be coming soon. Hog Farm _Talk 17:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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