Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bernard Williams/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
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 kept by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:15, 13 August 2009 [1].

Bernard Williams edit

Review commentary edit

Toolbox
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy, User talk:SlimVirgin.

FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues but these could be addressed without much problem as there is not an overwhelming amount. Could use an image review of the 4 images used in the article. Also could use a once-over from some fresh eyes for things like flow, small subsections, and short paragraphs. Cirt (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are some things I noticed:
  1. None of the cited sources in either the notes or ref sections are archived.
  2. There are some duplicates between the notes and ref section. If this is intentional, it might be advantageous to switch to a shortened footnote style.--Rockfang (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've tidied the refs. I'm not sure what's meant by "archived." SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a bit better, nice job SlimVirgin (talk · contribs). Only needs a little more work actually. Cirt (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This talks about the archive parameters when using a cite template (cite web in this instance).--Rockfang (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a couple are archived, but I can check the rest. Cirt, what else did you have in mind? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I merged a couple short paragraphs, and added three {{fact}} tags that can easily be addressed, other than that I don't think there is much else. Cirt (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll add the extra references within the next day or so. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay sounds great. Cirt (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added sources where you requested them. [2] I removed two things: first, that he wrote the entry for opera in the Grove Dictionary of Music. I think it was in one of the obits that is no longer online, so I can't currently source it. Secondly, I removed an unsourced paragraph about thick and thin concepts that someone else wrote. I'll restore it eventually, but I may have to get to an academic library to do that. Otherwise, it's all done, I think. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I found the source for the two things I'd had to remove (the "opera" entry, and the thick concepts),[3] so that's it all done now. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, those issues for me are done. IMO, only thing left to address are the images. Cirt (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images
  1. File:BernardWilliams.jpg = could use improvement with {{Non-free rationale}}
  2. File:KingsCollegeChapel.jpg = could use improvement at Commons, with commons:Template:Information
  3. File:Nietzsche1.jpg = could use improvement at Commons, with commons:Template:Information, also Missing: Name of artist, date, source name of the artwork, brief description, etc.
  4. File:Immanuel Kant.jpg = could use improvement at Commons, with commons:Template:Information

Cirt (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a rationale for Williams, which I uploaded. I didn't upload the others and don't know anything about them, so I'm not sure what I can add to the image pages. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what I've done instead with the others, is replace them with images that have more complete descriptions on their image pages. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, for the File:BernardWilliams.jpg, I meant to link to Template:Non-free use rationale, it would be most helpful to standardize the image page with that. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed this myself. Cirt (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. File:Nietzsche1882.jpg = Unfortunately this one lacks source information.
  2. File:Immanuel Kant (painted portrait).jpg = This one lacks author/artist information, but has a source - it would be preferable in the future to get that info, but this one is probably okay.

Cirt (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the Nietzsche image with File:Friedrich Nietzsche drawn by Hans Olde.jpg, which is fully appropriately sourced, so I think I'm done. Cirt (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The one that was in the article did have a source. The image page said it was Nietzsche by Walter Kaufmann, Princeton Paperbacks, Fourth Edition. ISBN 0-691-01983-5 SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added the source more clearly to the Nietzsche page on the Commons. Thanks for fixing the Williams image page. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that now - and I've undone my image replacement. All is well. Cirt (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed first- and second-person pronouns in the reasons for action section. Much of this sounds encyclopedic when taken out of context; is there anyway it can be quoted/rephrased? I understand that it's hard to summarize this material in an "encyclopedic" way. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this one sentence? "If I feel moved to do something good, it is because I want to. I may want to do the right thing for a number of reasons. I may have been brought up to believe that X is good, and I may wish to act in accordance with my upbringing, or I may want to look good in someone else's eyes, or perhaps I fear the disapproval of my community."
It could be rephrased, sure, though this is the way philosophers write, so I personally don't see it as a problem. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I thought; a good time to ignore the rule. The article looks fine; I've made a couple cosmetic changes, but I think it's FA level. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done anyway. :-) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nitpick: In the "Early life and education" section, three consecutive sentences begin with "He"; can we change it up a bit...? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, MOS. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources and a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature ". YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, positive improvements. Cirt (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd feel better if this sentence had a reference: "Williams's last completed book, Truth And Truthfulness: An Essay In Genealogy (2002), attempts to defend a non-foundationalist attachment to the values of truth, which Williams identifies as accuracy and sincerity, by giving a vindicatory naturalistic genealogy of them." Dabomb87 (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't write that sentence, so I don't know what the source was. It was a little repetitive of what follows it, so I've removed it and lightly copy-edited the section. [4] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed two of them. [5] The meaning of the third, synthesis, is referred to on the dab page, but has no article, so I left it as it was. The dab page says, "In philosophy and science, a higher a priori process than analysis," which isn't quite how I'd describe it, but it's the closest to the meaning I was using. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other alternative would be a link to Wiktionary, if you just want a simple explanatory definition. Wiktionary has an entry for synthesis, but lacks an entry for "synthesist" - which I assume is what is really required. You could just create that entry and make the link to it. --RexxS (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for adding that alt text. It's almost done, but it needs a bit more work because it contains proper names that a typical Wikipedia reader cannot verify by simply looking at the image. Could you please reword the alt text to remove all the proper names like "Cambridge" and "Nietzsche" and "Kant"? For more, please see WP:ALT #What not to specify paragraph 3, and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples example 3. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this what you're looking for? I have to wonder what the point is of making the descriptions less informative. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that visually-impaired readers hear both the alt text and the caption, and are not helped if the alt text repeats the caption. For them the "description" is the combination of the alt text and the caption, not the alt text alone; see WP:ALT #Difference from captions. The changes you made to the alt text were an improvement, thanks. If the removed details "The Backs, looking east across" and "which is the style in Cambridge" are important, they should be resurrected in the captions. Can you please also reword the alt text to remove the proper names "Kings College Chapel", "Gibbs", and "River Cam"? Also, please remove the wiki markup, as it's ineffective in alt text (see WP:ALT #What not to specify). Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those points aren't important to the article, but people can see them in the image. I was thinking for the visually impaired they might like to know the punter is on the back, which is the Cambridge style (as opposed to Oxford where they punt from the front). But it's a minor point. How should I describe the image without naming King's College Chapel and the Gibbs building? "A very old building that people pray and sing in, next to a newer white building that people have offices in?" :) Seriously, I'm at a loss. Would you mind doing that one for me, so I can see what's needed for the future? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, much better, thanks. Ordinarily I'd stop here (except for the dates, see below), except that while you were doing that I was drafting alt text with more detail. Rather than discard my draft I just now merged it in. The only problems I found in your latest version were dates like "15th century" and "1882" that a casual reader can't immediately verify from the image. My version had considerably more detail; alt text is supposed to be brief and is also supposed to cover all essential detail, and it's a judgment call as to how to satisfy these competing objectives, so please feel free to remove detail you think is too prolix. One trick I've learned is to describe the image's features in the order that I first noticed them, a trick I tried to use here. Eubulides (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, got it, I think. Thank you! It's surprisingly difficult simply to describe what you see, without making assumptions. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Could you cite the second sentence of the Royal Commissions section, please? That specific sentence isn't backed up by the citation at the end of the paragraph. A citation in the "posthumous works" section also would be good. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Substantial improvements have been made since the article was nominated at FAR. It has appropriate citations, and the prose meets FA standards. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Keep
  • There is (excellent and well-written) material in the lead that is not covered in the body (eg. his feminism).
  • There is nothing else to say about the feminism that I'm aware of, but it's an important point for the lead. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may be right, there may indeed be nothing more to say about feminism. But something cannot be "an important point for the lead" yet not covered in the body. The point is that, per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the article - everything covered by the lead should be covered in the body text. It doesn't have to be in more detail; on the contrary, the lead would usuall have less detail on each point in the body text - which indeed suggests that Williams' feminism is being given too much weight in the lead.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it regarded as acceptable not to have page number refs to book-length works, even when providing a direct quote? I'd have thought not.
  • Yes, there are 11 references to Jeffries book, including several quotes, and none have page references.
  • <slaps forehead> Homer Simpson moment. D'oh. OK I think that shows I was searching for nits. I'm done here. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Williams 1973 is in the notes but not in the references.
  • Foot 1978 is in the references but not the notes. Likewise Williams 1985 (it is mentioned in a note, but not as a citation, so the inclusion in his list of works is adequate)
  • The "Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy" reference is incomplete.
  • It lacks author name, date of publication, date of retrieval, and city of publication if relevant. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not following what you mean. It isn't used as a reference. It's in the publications section as Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy. Princeton University Press, 2002. It doesn't need an author, because they're all his. It doesn't need a retrieval date, because it's a book. Or am I missing your point? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See footnote 19. Actually, a similar problem applies to footnote 21. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 19 is a reference to a review of the book, not the book itself. Same with footnote 21. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent). Actually, there is a more serious problem here. The quotation that is cited as footnote 19 is not only incomplete as a citation format, it is actually not from a review of the book. It is from the publisher's spiel about the book on the publishers web page. As such, i would suggest it is not a reliable source and should be deleted. However, that same page contains some quotes from reviews in reputable sources. One of these could be quoted instead. When doing so, the footnote citation should look something like this: 'Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy (review)', Kenneth Baker, The San Francisco Chronicle, cited in Princeton University Press, The Sense of the Past: Essays in the History of Philosophy, retrieved 2009-08-11.
Note how in this case Princeton University Press is not positioned in the citation as the publisher of a book, but as the author of a website, which is the appropriate approach in this particular case. A similar principle needs to be followed in footnote 21 - that is, indicating that one is citing a publisher's webpage, not a book. I have gone ahead and made the changes for footnote 19. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton, I'm not following what you mean exactly. Would you mind going ahead and making whatever changes you'd like to see? That can include removing Nussbaum's view from the lead if you think it best, or expanding it elsewhere as you prefer. I'm not likely to object to any changes you make within reason. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW thank you for your further improvement on the book review. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are inline cites to Sen and Williams 1982. This is an edited volume and the cites must surely be to individual chapters. It is particularly important in this case as the authors have significantly different perspectives. To me this is a crucial point.
  • I am perplexed. I'm not suggesting removal - on the contrary - the difference of views between Sen and Williams appears an important vehicle for explaining Williams' philosophy; and as two of the leading figures of their time, a debate between them should be covered. I'm indicating that the article should cite the individual papers / chapters / pages where each expresses their position. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no debate as such. They edited the book together. There's no need to mention Sen to explain Williams's views. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (shrugs) OK, but if there's no need to mention Sen, why did the FA article originally do so? Plus I didn't mean debate literally. As an outsider who has never seen the book I had formed the impression it was an edited collection deliberately designed to set up a discussion / debate / whatever between philosophers of different views on a particular topic. If it was such a thing, I'd say it was notable and should be covered. But if I'm wrong, then the removal is fine. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, looks like it might have been close paraphrasing of Nussbaum anyway, so never mind. It is better now anyway. :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More generally, the article lacks a section on legacy / impact / evaluation of his work, drawing on the comments and discussions by third parties of Williams' philosophy and its impact on the field, on the work of other academics, its practical effects etc. To me, as a lay reader, this appears a serious omission that leaves me wondering whether, apart from a debate with Sen and his colleagues, any notice was taken of his work. Yet the lead says (and I accept that) he "became known internationally".

The issues with the references are easily corrected by anyone with access to the hard copy sources; the final issue is more substantive. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't seen a lot about his legacy outside the obits, probably not enough for a section that wasn't repetitive of the rest of the article. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Again, great work and SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) deserves a good deal of credit for addressing these issues so quickly, well done. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Cirt, and your efforts on the legacy section are fabulous, removing my most significant concern with this article. I have one remaining concern, and one new one. The remaining concern is ensuring the lead is summarising text that is in the body of the article. The new concern is the removal of the debate between Sen and Williams: as a non-expert, my intuition is that this would need to be retained in some form to ensure a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". However, I am also open to pursuasion by other editors on this point. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hamilton, I disagree with that interpretation of LEAD, and in fact have several times intended to go in and clarify it. We often want to refer to something in the lead—some small but interesting issue that's worth pointing out, but isn't developed enough to say much else about it, and this is a case in point. LEAD doesn't actually say that everything in the lead must be developed later on.
  • Well you've been around for a lot longer than me, but I thought the guideline on the lead was pretty unambiguous, and from memory I've seen editors / reviews get stuck on this point. I have to say I have never seen a lead that so pointedly addresses an issue that is then not covered in the body text as is the case in this Williams article. I do not think there is anything "small" about a philosopher of international reknown being "as close to being a feminist as a powerful man of his generation could be". But if it is small, then how does it fit with the principle that "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic"?
  • It's an example of the difficulty of having guidelines that give too much advice. We end up with people trying to write by algorithm. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. It seemed like pretty good advice to me. But i'll leave that there. I am aware of the growing concern about policy creep around WP, and I have some sympathy with that concern. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get stuck on this, and I like your style, but this just seems beyond any normal interpretation of the guideline on the lead. I also think it may be possible to work this material into the text, through the fact that Williams supported his wife's rising ambitions. Indeed Nussbaum appears to make this link. The full text of her passage on the subject:

Throughout his career Williams gave evidence of being a really serious feminist. He not only defended women’s equality in politics and employment, and later their right to be free from sexual harassment in the university, but he also saw the importance of acting in ways that supported women’s aspirations. During both of his marriages, for example, he provided a lot more child care than was common among men at his level of success, and he always supported the careers of his wives, both women of immense achievement. I am grateful for his advice concerning an instance of sexual harassment in my own career. His advice was both sympathetic and tough: he insisted that women should not put up with anything that compromised their dignity.

Anyway, a thought. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By all means develop it if you'd like to, but it's not something I'd see a need for. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'll try and get around to doing something with this. It may need a slight restructure of the "Life" section, which may in any case improve the article. Currently under "Career" there is actually quite a bit of text that is strictly about his personal life, such as the long quote from his ex-wife. But I'm happy to let it go unless I put my editing where my mouth is and get to revising it. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amartya Sen wasn't in any way central to Williams. They edited one book about utilitarianism together. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:40, 11 August 2009 (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_review/Bernard_Williams/archive1&oldid=1089816639"