Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Kantian ethics/1
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: The only comment was in agreement with the concerns raised, to which one more was added. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
The part of the article about Kant's ethical theory is mostly just a presentation of the formulations of the categorical imperative from the Groundwork (which, as per title, is the grounding of his moral theory, not the actual theory). There is no discussion of the Critique of Practical Reason. Although I added a section on the Metaphysics of Morals, it is only the bare minimum of what a specialized article should include. For this reason it fails GA criterion 3a.
Although it meets GA criterion 2, there is very little engagement with the enormous secondary literature on this subject.
The Influences, Contemporary Kantian Ethicists, and Criticisms sections have no clear criteria for inclusion and are uneven in their coverage. For this reason it arguably fails GA criterion 4.
I did some work on this article a year ago and left some notes on the talk page, but no one has stepped up to do the sort of work necessary to get this up to current GA standards. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with the points being raised. An important oversight seems to be that there is nothing about neo-Kantianism. The point raised on the talk-page about Korsgaard is still valid. In relation to criterion 2b, there are some unreferenced and partially referenced paragraphs but this by itself would not be too difficult to address. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- I would love a section on neo-Kantianism! Had no idea there even was an ethical tradition there. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)