Talk:Ontology/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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

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)

Review

Table

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 also seen 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.
	7. Overall assessment.

Notes

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.
• 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.

2. Lead

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

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.
• 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.
• 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.

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.
• 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.
• 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.
• I would take out merely when referring to phenomena.