Talk:Ethics/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Passed. 750h+ (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: 750h+ (talk · contribs) 15:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phlsph7, I’ll be reviewing. You’ve managed to create an excellent article. I am not big on philosophy, so if I make a mistake, please correct me. I’ll start reviewing this soon. 750h+ (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 750h+ and thanks for doing this review! Phlsph7 (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Phlsph7. Excuse me if I make any mistakes (this will be my first [official] review). 750h+ (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section - pass[edit]

  • Consider adding the Template:Philosophy sidebar, because ethics are a branch of philosophy. 750h+ (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I usually try to avoid lead infobars since they are discouraged by MOS:LEADELEMENTS but let me know if you think this is an exception. The article has a philosophy navbar at the bottom. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, acceptable. 750h+ (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This will not affect the good article passing, but on the lead image's caption, do we need to link prohibited and obligatory? They're already visually represented in the image, and most people are likely familiar with their meanings. 750h+ (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. 750h+ (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Normative ethics tries to discover and justify universal principles that govern how people should act in any situation." I understand this sentence is grammatically correct, but I feel that it would sound better if we rephrase it to "Normative ethics discovers and justifies universal principles that govern how people should act in any situation." 750h+ (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. 750h+ (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider stating more about the history and related fields. 750h+ (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I tried to keep it concise to not give too much emphasis to these topics in comparison to the main branches. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent job Phlsph7. I am passing the lead section. 750h+ (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definition - pass[edit]

  • This is a pass. It is excellently written, free of grammatical errors, illustrated with a good picture of Aristotle and is well referenced.750h+ (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normative ethics[edit]

  • "Many theories of normative ethics try not only to provide principles to assess the moral value of actions but aim additionally to guide behavior by helping people make moral decisions." To make this more concise we can rephrase this to "Many theories of normative ethics aim additionally to guide behavior by helping people make moral decisions", or something similar to that. 750h+ (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consequentialism[edit]

Types - pass[edit]
  • "Most theories assess the moral value of acts. But consequentialism can also be used to evaluate motives, character traits, rules, and policies." This is also grammatically correct, but it sounds a bit strange to me. Maybe replace it with "However"? Your choice, this won't affect the passing of the article. 750h+ (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " It states, for example, that an equal distribution of goods is overall better than an unequal distribution even if the aggregate good is the same." Remove overall. 750h+ (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might be wrong but maybe rephrase this sentence "This implies that the relation between act and consequences is indirect." to "This implies that the relation between an act and its consequences is indirect." 750h+ (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of the earliest forms of consequentialism is found in ancient Chinese philosophy where Mohists argued that political action should promote justice as a means to increase the welfare of the people." is there a way we can put into two sentences or more? single-sentence paragraphs should be avoided. If we can't, then I can let it go. 750h+ (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, I'm also not a fan of one-sentence paragraphs. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More excellent work. I am passing this section. 750h+ (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Utilitarianism - pass[edit]
  • I pass this section. Well-written, well sourced and pictures are good too. 750h+ (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deontology - pass[edit]

  • Rephrase "Examples are that one should tell the truth, keep promises, and not intentionally harm others" to "For instance, following moral rules includes telling the truth, keeping promises, and not intentionally harming others." for better flow and clarity. 750h+ (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I used the sentence "They may include requirements like to tell the truth, keep promises, and not intentionally harm others." If that doesn't work, we could also use your suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That works. Pass. 750h+ (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agent-centered and patient-centered[edit]
Kantianism - pass[edit]
  • "For Kant, to act morally is to act in accordance with reason as expressed by these principles." I recommend you rephrase this to "According to Kant, to act morally is to act in accordance with reason as expressed by these principles." 750h+ (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For Kant, actions motivated in such a way are unconditionally good, meaning that they are good even in cases where they result in undesirable consequences." I also recommend you change that to "According to Kant, actions motivated in such a way are unconditionally good, meaning that they are good even in cases where they result in undesirable consequences." Considering Wikipedia presents to a general audience, many people might not understand that by "For Kant", you mean "According to Kant". 750h+ (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass. 750h+ (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Divine command theory, contractualism, and discourse ethics[edit]

Virtue ethics[edit]

  • Change "Feminist ethics of care constitute another form of virtue ethics." to "Feminist ethics of care are another form of virtue ethics." for conciseness. 750h+ (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass. 750h+ (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Applied ethics[edit]

Bioethics[edit]

Business and professional ethics[edit]

Others - pass[edit]

  • In the third paragraph, "Military ethics is a closely related field that is interested in the conduct of military personnel." Why is "Military ethics" linked? The page redirects back to Ethics. 750h+ (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't think of a good reason so I removed it. It would be good to have an article on this topic, in which case the could be restored. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Pass. 750h+ (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metaethics[edit]

Basic concepts[edit]

  • "Obligation and permission are contrasting terms that can be defined through each other:" Is it supposed to be "Obligations and permissions are contrasting terms that can be defined through each other:" 750h+ (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The intention was to refer to the terms themselves. I put them into italics now as per MOS:WORDSASWORDS. We could also use your suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, my bad. You do what you feel is more grammatically correct. 750h+ (talk) 09:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Realism, relativism, and nihilism[edit]

Naturalism and non-naturalism[edit]

Cognitivism and non-cognitivism[edit]

Moral knowledge[edit]

Moral motivation[edit]

Related fields - pass[edit]

Value theory[edit]

Moral psychology[edit]

History[edit]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • There’s a lot of references in the bibliography. The article is sourced from reputable journals, books, scholarly articles, and dictionaries, with no flimsy websites or blogs, so that's a sourcing pass. Excellent job you have done Phlsph7.

Integrity check - pass[edit]

  • "Theories in normative ethics state how people should act or what kind of behavior is correct. They do not aim to describe how people normally act, what moral beliefs ordinary people have, how these beliefs change over time, or what ethical codes are upheld in certain social groups. These topics belong to descriptive ethics and are studied in fields like anthropology, sociology, and history rather than normative ethics" is sourced by reference number 12. Sims 2017, p. 6 and Barsh & Lisewski 2013, p. 29 both give a good overview.
  • "Consequentialism, also referred to as teleological ethics," is sourced correctly by Bunnin & Yu 2009 page 134.
  • "educational ethics, which covers ethical issues related to proper teaching practices,[115]" the Maxwell 2023 page 610 correctly summarises what is said; see Google Books for evidence.
  • " Pages 1681, 1682, 1863 of the 2013 Ames book nicely summarises the "Taoism extends the importance of living in harmony to the whole world and teaches that people should practice effortless action by following the natural flow of the universe." sentence.

Passing the integrity check. 750h+ (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

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. Prose is of excellent standards; exceeds good article criteria.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Perfect; understandable to most age groups-ranging from young teenagers to old adults.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. No bare URLs spotted. The majority of sources are books, journals, and scholarly articles, cited in the bibliography
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). All citations are reliable; as mentioned in 2a
2c. it contains no original research. All statements are cited.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Excellent. It introduces the main fields of ethics
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Perfect, as mentioned in 3a
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. No signs or biased statements.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Article is stable; there have been no recent edit wars.
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. All images are appropriately licensed.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images are related to the topic, with most being of historical famous philosophers or philosophy-related figures.
7. Overall assessment. Excellent article overall.

Unrelated comments[edit]

Phlsph7, considering this is such a broad, comprehensive topic, I recommend you taking it to featured article. The Philosophy, Logic, and Communication articles are all excellent articles, so I think it's a good idea. Great work on the article. 750h+ (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Congrats @Phlsph7:, I am happy with your responses and feel that it meets the criteria. 750h+ (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @750h+: Thanks a lot for all the helpful suggestions and the encouraging feedback! It can be difficult to predict how FA nominations go but I plan to give it a try. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethics/GA1&oldid=1212948178"