Wikipedia:Peer review/Knowledge/archive2

Knowledge[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to start a featured article candidacy. I was hoping to get some feedback on its current status and possible improvements.

Thanks, Phlsph7 (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good already, very well done. in the see alsos, it's got Knowledge falsification – Deliberate misrepresentation of knowledge, and Knowledge transfer. perhaps discuss, integrate, these into the article. intelligence is only in the see also, discuss the difference between intelligence and knowledge in the article? a few more images might bring it to life for some readers e.g. younger readers. See WP:BRITANNICA; I use it but you don't need to as much as you often have more reliable references alongside? Tom B (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tom B and thanks for the improvements to the article and the review! As I interpret WP:BRITANNICA, the main problem is with entries that do not have a named author. It's a tertiary source but this is usually not a problem for very general claims that aim to give broad summaries of topics as is often the case for this type of overview article. I'll try to replace the problematic references and implement your other suggestions in terms of see also links and images. I'll ping you once I've addressed the main points. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom B: Ok, I hope I got the main points. I didn't include Knowledge falsification in the article since, as a technical term, this seems to be a rather recent invention that is not yet widely discussed. I added one image and I'm sure that more could be added but we currently have 14 images which seems sufficient to me. Please let me know if this was roughly what you had in mind and if you have further ideas. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nice one, thank you. the lead has a lot of the things you'd expect in it. It also gets technical quickly with a specific reference to Gettier in the first para. about two thirds of readers don't go past the lead so worth putting disproportionate effort in there e.g. simplifying and removing any unimportant detail where possible? this is more about accessibility for the general reader than FA. i'd not planned to read the 8,000 words, i'm not an FA expert! and you don't have to message me back. Feel free to switch to something else other than Wittgenstein, i just like him, Tom B (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Nagel paper on what is like to be a bat relevant or is that more to do with something else? Tom B (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right that the lead does not need to mention Gettier by name. I slightly changed your formulation but I think your suggestions would work fine as well. Nagel's paper is more about the nature of experience than about knowledge. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]