Wikipedia:Peer review/Omnipotence paradox/archive1

Omnipotence paradox edit

This page has gone through some trauma; by its very nature, the topic seems to step on the most sensitive toes. However, the Cleanup Taskforce left it in good shape, and it has been pretty stable over the past several months. It's not a very pictorial subject, but I added a couple images I found in other articles. Anville 11:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is very well-written, but should be expanded by at least one more summary paragraph. I'd suggest that the article is a little light on contemporary philosophy -- there is a link to Semantics as a See also, but it should be possible to find a Wittgensteinian treatment of the problem and mention semantics in that context. Much the same with Logical positivism. The two items make the "See also" list look more like "two things not worked into the article yet" rather than explicit cross-references. The Simpsons reference is really, really trivial. The other "pop culture" reference is confusingly written; there is either too much or too little about quantum physics in there, and all as a preamble to a mention of a novel. The images were good choices, but the one of Averroës has no source information. I hope that can be fixed. Overall a good article. Jkelly 03:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that was a remarkable piece of work. Great job on the addition. I think that the trivia section is still too, well, trivial and I imagine that editors at WP:FAC will agree, if that is where this article is headed. Again, good work. If I have the chance, I will try to go over the article myself to give it some fresh eyes. Jkelly 02:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree on the trivia section, and I wouldn't be terribly sorry to see it go. (I've worked over several other articles to merge their Trivia lists into other sections — "factoids" are like facts, but not.) At one point, it was a few bullet points longer, but the extra topics (like the Babel fish) weren't really the same paradox. As always, thanks for your comments. Anville 10:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]