Wikipedia:Peer review/Epistemology/archive1

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

I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I would be interested to learn what changes are required to fulfill the featured article criteria, but I'm also open to more casual improvement ideas.

Thanks, Phlsph7 (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have given the article a semi-comprehensive read on all aspects(when you take it to FAC, I'm open to being pinged for a deeper review), and I feel it meets all the FA criteria except 1a)(well-written), and as an extension of that, kind of 1b)(comprehensive) too

Basically, while I think all the relevant info is more or less there, with the correct depth, media and refs, I think the article lacks a feel of how the field has developed. It just feels more like an enumeration of concepts and schools of thoughts and less of how they relate and came to be. To illustrate

• History- It describes the history of the topic in three regions in ancient times (also, could be under a separate subheading), and not how they occasionally came in contact with each other(for eg- the indo-greek kingdoms and the influence of Hellenic Buddhism). There is an overview on medieval thought after, without describing how they emerged. Modern times show some relations, but it could also be better.

  I made several changes to indicate how the different positions are related to each other. The difficulty is that the relations are complex. To properly explain how each position historically evolved would require a significant expansion. These details are probably better discussed in child articles per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. I didn't include the influence of Buddhism on Hellenistic epistemology because this does not get much attention in the overview sources that I'm aware of. For example, the detailed articles on ancient Greek skepticism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ([1]) and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy([2]) each have only one sentence speculating about this relation. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Schools of thought-
  • subheading 1- could be rewritten to contrast and relate the three more

    I adjusted the paragraph on relativism to clarify this. The paragraph on fallibilism already explains the relation to skepticism. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • subheading 4- I think a better flow would be internalism, evidentalism, externalism, reliabilism, virtue

    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • subheading 5- these could be in more depth and greater emphasis on how they are similar and different from the others, plus, at least for Indian philosophy (so probably also true for non-Indian ones as well), I have seen academics contrasting and comparing it with the Greco-Roman one

    I did this for some schools, but for many others, there is no particularly interesting relation that could be explained in a single sentence. I'm open to concrete ideas on how to connect them.

    I'm not sure how much background in Greco-Roman epistemology we can assume for the comparison with Indian philosophy to be helpful to the reader. Especially for brief characterizations like the one here, it may be better to explain Indian epistemology in positive terms rather than focusing on how it differs from Greco-Roman epistemology. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    True on the positive rather than comparison terms, but some might still be good- like it might just be me, but it sort of feels like it is treated as its own separate thing, rather than part of a field. Like there would be some schools of thought that are very common to non-Indian ones, but also some that are unique. Basically, a greater overview on how different times and places have influenced the field- some in common to all/most times-places, some unique to a single/few. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I added a footnote to give a comparison. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Central concepts- a little bit more here and there, on how the perceptions and emphasis on them has changed.

  I added a few remarks to clarify the historical context. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Definition- maybe some info about the development of its definition as well?

  This is discussed in footnote [c].

To summarise, a very well-written article, with no major points missing, but that could be made much better with more information. Hope you will make it a FA, your articles are always a delight! Phlsph7. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DoctorWhoFan91, I appreciate all the helpful comments! I made several changes to the article, I hope I was able to address the main points. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phlsph7, looks good, you are going in the right direction. You have made sufficient changes as per suggestions, and you should also add info anywhere else the prose seems to be in a similar way as the above mentioned examples. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read through the article one more time before the nomination to make a few more adjustments. Personally, I prefer to concentrate the historical discussion in the history section and focus the other sections on their topics rather than the historical context. However, I know that some editors disagree so it's probably about finding a middle path that works for everyone. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote is good. True, maybe I'm just looking at the topic differently- I'm sure you'll find the best middle path. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]