Talk:Ontology/GA1

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

Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 12:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Lisha2037 (talk · contribs) 22:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I will be reviewing this page as a good article nominee. Give me a day or two to go through the whole article and get back to you with my feedback. Yours.

Hello Lisha2037 and thanks for reviewing this article! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

1. Overall Structure:

• Based of the Featured Article Philosophy, it would be preferable to have the History section earlier in the article for the sake of readability and flow of the content; either as 2 or 3.

2. Lead

• It would help to add that’s it’s a sub-discipline of metaphysics.
• Since it’s a summary of the article itself, a sentence or two should be added about the history of ontology.

3.Definition

• The word etymology should be used somewhere in this section. Either as Definition and Etymology or in the body when discussing the root of the word.
  
• The phrase “It can also mean a conceptual scheme or inventory of a particular domain" might be explained in simpler terms for broader readability.
  
• The Lowe definition states that ontology is a branch of metaphysics but it’s later stated in the section that ontology is related to metaphysics while also later saying that it’s also a sub discipline. Could we word it in a way that makes it clear that ontology is a subfield of metaphysics.