Talk:Stoicism/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: --Tea with toast (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this page over the next few days. From my brief overview, it looks like some copy editing may be needed. I would encourage interested editors to comb through the text and fix any grammatical errors and make sure that the paragraphs are not needlessly too long and center around a topic sentence. I will be looking at these things in my review.--Tea with toast (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Problems needing to be addressed

Great work with the article thus far! I have enjoyed reading it. However, there are several details that need to be attended to before I can pass this article. I will place this article "on hold" and allow a week or so for these changes to be made. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Quotations

As per Wikipedia guidelines: "Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation. A reader should not have to follow a footnote to learn whose words a quote is."

Quotations given in the "Sotic logic" and "Stoic physics and cosmology" do not give proper attribute in the text (though I am glad to see that they have proper footnotes). See the quote given in the "Spiritual exercise" subsection – it uses proper attribution. Please change the other quotations to be in a similar fashion.

References

Several problems with references need to be addressed before I can pass this article.

• Items in the "Further readings" section should be in alphabetical order with the author's last name given first. (However, philosophers such as "Marcus Aurelius" can be kept as is.)
• References 9, 21 and 23 need full citation with publisher, year published, and ISBN if possible.
• References 11 and 12 need full citation; however, I am also questioning if they are reliable sources, since it appears to me that they may be self-published. Please justify their use.
• References 6, 7, and 8 also need full citation; however, I would recommend placing the full citation in the "Primary Sources" subsection and leaving the footnotes as they are now.

Please refer to Wikipedia guidelines about citations for more help on this.

Thank you for undertaking this review; I have addressed some of the citation issues you have raised if you would care to look over the updated version of the article. Best, Skomorokh 16:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Great work! --Tea with toast (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Final review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Spiritual Exercises

The section on spiritual exercises makes no mention of Epictetus but only Marcus Aurelius but the core ideas of the Meditations can be found in Epictetus. Any comments from editors? Oxford73 (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)