Talk:Holism/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Cessaune (talk · contribs) 02:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to review this. Seems interesting. Likely timeline: two weeks. Cessaune [talk] 02:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Sounds good, let me know if you have any questions.Non-pegasus (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's the first half of the review (I'll start from the back):

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

It's a philosophical article, so the images that are currently in the article are fine as is.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

.

Not much to say here. No edit warring going on.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Seems neutral. I read through some stuff online, and it seems to give due weight to opinions fairly.

This was the easy part. I'll finish the rest later. Cessaune [talk] 04:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Non-pegasus:

Broad in its coverage:

After a check online, it seems to touch on all the important points of the concept. However, it does not touch significantly on criticisms of holism, especially in the context of reductionism. It also needs to go more into depth when it comes to some of the claims it makes (Biological scientists, however, did offer favorable assessments shortly after its first print because? There must've been a reason.)

Verifiable with no original research:

A bunch of scholarly articles that, at a glance, are definitely good. I did some digging and it seems that the sources are generally good. The problem here is that certain sections lack inline citations (lifestyle applications for example) and certain assertions are unsourced (The advent of holism in the 20th century coincided with the gradual development of quantum mechanics—is this implying causation? Or is it just correlation?). Every paragraph has to have at least one inline citation, two to be safe.
There is also a general lack of links. Given the technicality of the subject, I would expect there to be more links to aid the reader in understanding things. Based on the lack of links, certain sections and sentences look almost OR-ish, and massive swaths of article text are only supported by a single source.

Well-written:

This article is approaching a level of technicality that makes it only minorly understandable to a broad audience. Coupled with the issues below, this issue gets blown out of proportion.
The prose is off, and grammar mistakes permeate the article. Three examples:
1. First, holism is the idea of an empirical whole system with examples including atomic or material systems, cells, and an individual's personality. This reads weirdly. In its contextual bubble, it kind of makes sense, but outside that context, it fails to remain understandable.
2. The metaphysical claim does not assert that physical systems involve abstract properties beyond the composition of its physical parts, but that there are concrete properties aside from those of its basic physical parts. For instance, theoretical physicist David Bohm (1917-1992) supports this view head-on. For instance? This is incorrect grammar. For instance implies that an example of the previous claim is coming next.
3. Bohm believed that a complete description of the universe would have to go beyond a simple list of all its particles and their positions, there would also have to be a physical quantum field associated with the properties of those particles guiding their trajectories. The comma should be a semicolon, colon, or m-dash.
Each section seems to be walled off into its own little bubble. It reads as if it's talking abot multiple, somewhat-related ideas. Consequently, it simply isn't interesting to read.

Based on all this, I'm going to put this nomination on hold. Please ping me when you think you have adequately addressed the issues I have laid out above. Cessaune [talk] 05:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cessaune,

Thank you for your review, I appreciate the honesty and, as far as I can tell, the accuracy of your feedback. Because of other commitments, I will not be available to address your points concerning breadth, verifiability/OR, and writing to the level of adequacy I assume you're looking for (or the level of adequacy I want out of myself). I wish I had more time to improve its quality within 7 days. I've made a few edits already and will continue making edits when I am able but I understand if you need to fail the review after my 7 day period. I appreciate your careful review over the past 2 weeks and I will keep the feedback in mind as I continue other projects on Wikipedia. It was my first good article nomination so I really mean it that I appreciate your feedback :). Thanks! 🦄 Non-pegasus (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Non-pegasus Outsider chiming in: Notwithstanding that the nomination failed, I congratulate you for your bravery in nominating an article and the work you've put into it! I've done one, and I've definitely been scared off the process for a couple months haha - good luck with your future wiki-endeavours :) ~ Frzzl talk · contribs 21:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. The amount of effort you've put in (>90% of the article) is staggering, and is also the kind of thing that goes unnoticed. I hope that, one day, this page will be lucky enough to ggrace the Main Page. Happy editing! Cessaune [talk] 03:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! It was very rewarding to develop the article. While I'm developing another article that is closer to my interests and which is taking up a lot more of my wiki-focus, I hope to return to this one and align it closer with our criteria. I appreciate your kind words! 🦄 Non-pegasus (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]