Wikipedia:Peer review/Conatus/archive1

Conatus

On my way to FAC... My main concern is the difficulty of the material: if you could point out what doesn't make sense, I could try to make it easier! Thanks. -- Rmrfstar 21:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't agree at all. The article is quite accessible. There are still a few awkward phrasings and so on. No big deal. I think the main issue may turn out to be breath/comprehensiveness. It's difficult when your dealing with an article on a term or concept. Still, I should like to see more beef in there before going to FAC. Unfortunately, I don't have resources available right now. I can only serach the net for different ideas. However, I will look through my old copies of Descartes, old SPinny and the rest and see if antyhign can be fleshed out. Actually, the Spinoza section is alright. I'll see what I can find in Descartes and the other classics. Maybe we can expand on these without making it seem artificial. I'll see what I can do in these regards.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, wow: thanks! I looked over your changes so far and they look great... thanks a lot.

So, which sections do you think need expansion? I still have some sources that might be used to beef them up. -- Rmrfstar 15:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't have this page on my watchlist. I'm not sure where it can be expanded from here. One possibility is you might want to treat the medieval scholastic's various notions of conatus as impetus or inherent properties more extensively. It seems to have been a big topic in that period. Descartes could probably still use some clarification. Another idea would be to treat thinkers like Vico and Nietzche in a bit more detail than just a sentence or two. Now, I'm just throwing out possibilities. On the more nitpicky stylistic side (I hate to do this, but there are some extremely sharp editors in FAC and they've often nailed me on these things): watch out for one and two sentence paragraphs. I've had some terrible beatings on those in FAC P:........ The lead: three paras, at least. And it's supposed to summarize the contents of the article. As they say over there : it should be able to "stand on its own" so that someone can read JUST the lead and get the main ideas. Hint: The referencing is great, but don't be afraid to err on the side of excess. Format looks fine and all that. Good work so far. Getting late over here. I have to get off. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 17:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think three full paragraphs is too much for the lede, but I added a sentence summarizing the "modern relevance" section. With this addition, I believe the lede can stand on its own. I'll try to expand the treatment of other definitions. After that, I think I'll nominate it. -- Rmrfstar 21:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that big a deal. It should be "proportional" to the article, so I think you may be alright.

Let me take a scan through to copyedit a bit. Nominating it is a good idea in any case. I find it's often the only way to get really valuable feedback, in fact. Even if it fails, you still have some clearer idea what to work on afterward. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]