Talk:Ontology/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 12:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Lisha2037 (talk · contribs) 22:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I will be reviewing this page as a good article nominee. Give me a day or two to go through the whole article and get back to you with my feedback. Yours.

Hello Lisha2037 and thanks for reviewing this article! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7 Thanks for your work on this. Just one more further comment in the review section. I also wanted to suggest, but it’s not part of the GA criteria, it’s the balance in the History The section seems to give disproportionate emphasis to Western philosophy, while non-Western philosophies (such as Chinese and Indian) are mentioned briefly. For balance, the contributions of non-Western philosophers could be explored in more depth to match the treatment given to their Western counterparts. I can see in the History page there’s mention of Native American approaches, which is briefly mentioned previously in the article. Lisha2037 (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a short expansion to the history section. Indigenous ontologies have their own paragraph in the section "Related fields" in relation to anthropology, including Native American ontologies. If there are other specific theories you have in mind, I can try to include them. However, we should be careful about this type of expansion: most overview sources, like the article "Ontology, History of" in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, have little to no coverage of this, see WP:PROPORTION. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks like it’s ready for a pass. Lisha2037 (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Many readers will not have a background in philosophy, so simplifying some of the dense academic language is essential. If the language can’t be modified, I find providing examples helps in explaining the concept, which is seen done in several instances throughout the article. Such as "Ontology examines what all entities have in common and how they are divided into fundamental classes, known as categories," simplify it to: “Ontology studies what all things have in common and how they can be grouped into basic types, such as living things, objects, and ideas.”
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Great work on the sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There’s two high possibility checks returned and both sources look to have copied information from the Wikipedia article itself and not the other way around. The first is a LinkedIn post and the second is a lawyer’s blog.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	My only comment to work on before passing is the readability of the article.
	7. Overall assessment.

1. Overall Structure:

• I can see you have done substantial work across several FA and GA, especially in the Philosophy department. I was wondering why some articles are structured in different ways compared to others. Do you take a different approach to specific topics? Biographies, which I tend to do, almost always follow the same sections with customizations here and there to the subjects life and work.

  That's a good question. There are some commonalities for this type of article, like sections to define the field of inquiry and to discuss its branches, history, methods, and applications to other fields. Unlike biographies, there is no one standard format for how to structure them and different reliable overview sources often use different approaches. I usually try to follow the sources on the subject in question while aiming to find a logical and accessible way to arranged the different subtopics into a coherent article. For example, sometimes it makes sense to discuss concepts and schools of thought separately while such a division would artificial in other cases. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Based of the Featured Article Philosophy, it would be preferable to have the History section earlier in the article for the sake of readability and flow of the content; either as 2 or 3. This isn’t necessary, as you can see that Metaphysics also has its History later on, but for this article I felt a lot of the information would be more in context if the History section came first.

  The logical place for the history is usually either the beginning or the end. There are advantages and disadvantages to having history last but I think either way would be possible possible. One advantage of having it at the end is that all the main concepts have already been introduced, like being, universals, and dualism. This way, the reader has already some familiarity with them and it's possible to avoid lengthy explanations inside the history section. Many overview sources, like the articles "Ontology" in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, also start with the definition and the basic concepts and do not give much weight to the history. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for explaining. Since there is no Specialized layout for Philosophy articles in Wikipedia, this is not grounds for a fail. Lisha2037 (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. Lead

• It would help to add that’s it’s a sub-discipline of metaphysics.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Since it’s a summary of the article itself, a sentence or two should be added about the Branches section. I only see applied ontology mentioned.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3.Definition

• The word etymology should be used somewhere in this section. Either as Definition and Etymology or in the body when discussing the root of the word.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The phrase “It can also mean a conceptual scheme or inventory of a particular domain" might be explained in simpler terms for broader readability. I wouldn’t assume what an inventory of a particular domain would mean.

  I kept the terms since they are also used later in the article. I added a short explanation of each term instead. It's probably still a little abstract but I hope that makes it clearer. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for clarifying. Would you also be able to add what a particular domain would imply. To a lay person it may refer to variety of things like biological domain or geographical domain. Wikipedia has a few articles surrounding domains too. Lisha2037 (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. I only added one example since this is discussed in more detail later in the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The Lowe definition states that ontology is a branch of metaphysics but it’s later stated in the section that ontology is related to metaphysics while also later saying that it’s also a sub discipline. Could we word it in a way that makes it clear that ontology is a subfield of metaphysics.

  This point is a little difficult since different philosophers characterize the relation between metaphysics and ontology differently. Some say that ontology is a subdiscipline of metaphysics. Others say that metaphysics and ontology are the same discipline or that they are two separate disciplines with distinct topics. I reformulated the text to make the the subdiscipline-characterization more explicit. It's probably more influential than the other characterizations. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for updating. Lisha2037 (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4.Basic Concepts

• When stating that being contrasts with nothingness, is there a philosophical term for that, such as nihilism; it would help to add that to the article.

  None that I'm aware of. The point of this passage is primarly to give the reader an idea of how general the concept of being is. Nihilism is a related term. It usually means that a specific type of thing does not exist. For example, moral nihilism says that moral facts do not exist. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Simplifying the language and breaking down concepts into shorter, clearer sentences would enhance readability. For example, "Critics of this view argue that an entity without being cannot have any properties, meaning that being cannot be a property since properties presuppose being" is a bit convoluted. A more straightforward explanation would be helpful here.

  I implemented your suggestion and went through the section one more time to find simpler formulations. Please let me know if you encounter other passages that are difficult to understand. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for updating. Personally, as a journalist, I think many words could be simplified in the article but I don’t want that to be at the cost of not demonstrating the proper philosophical terms or theories. Lisha2037 (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is Berkeley referring to immaterialism here, which is the philosophy he was known for? Would be helpful to add the name of the term here.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would take out merely when referring to phenomena.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for clarifying. Lisha2037 (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]