Talk:Existence/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Of the universe (talk · contribs) 01:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to review this article. Of the universe (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed reading this article! Very interesting and clear. Will begin the in-depth review soon. Of the universe (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7, regarding the sentence: "Ontology is the philosophical discipline studying what existence is." I'm not sure whether this sentence means "Studying what existence is is within the scope of ontology." Or "Studying what existence is is a central focus of ontology." Or "Studying what existence is the central focus of ontology." Can you please clarify? Thanks, Of the universe (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on whom you ask. Existence is one of the key concepts in ontology and some philosophers define ontology as the study of existence. Our formulation leaves it open so either interpretation of the sentence works. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7 I see. I'm wondering whether a few sentences explaining the disagreement belongs in this article, or whether that's outside of the scope of Existence and just belongs in Ontology. Of the universe (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the differences in how ontology is defined matter much. The standard definition of ontology is "the study of being" but many philosophers do not draw a strict distinction between being and existence. I reformulated the sentence so it does not imply that ontology is defined as the study of existence. This way, we avoid the problem of how exactly to define ontology, which is probably better left to the article ontology. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Congrats! Of the universe (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and effort in reviewing this article and your helpful comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Overall, I enjoyed the article. Reading about different philosophical views on existence was thought-provoking, and I learned a lot.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The prose is great! The article is a pleasure to read. I didn't notice any grammar or spelling issues.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The lead nicely summarizes the context and the important points. The layout is good too. The tone is appropriate (complies with words to watch).
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. 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):

C. It contains no original research:
Passed citation spot check

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Passed citation spot check
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
It covers contemporary philosophical views as well as historical views in different philosophical traditions from Eastern and Western philosophy. I especially enjoyed the logic section, and learning about (E!).

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
It stays focused, and is well-populated with links to other articles to learn more. (Unfortunately many of those articles are much worse quality haha)
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Many viewpoints on the nature of existence are addressed and explored. The article has no preference for which is correct, but also makes it clear how mainstream the different views are.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
The picture of Pegasus is a nice touch.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pass! Congrats