Talk:Conatus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Good articles Conatus has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Peer review A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

[edit] GA (On Hold)

Citations. If you're going to have a list of references and cite with name and page number, please use the Harvard style.

Whoops... I was confusing MLA and Harvard... I'll implement the standardized Harvard templates tomorrow.
Done! -- Rmrfstar 20:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed.

  • First paragraph under "Classical origins". First sentance under "In the psyche" under "Hobbes".
    • Done.
  • Second and/or third sentance in the paragraph after the quote under "In physics" under "Hobbes".
    • This whole paragraph is found in "Jesseph", and seems to me sufficiently cited.
  • First sentance, third paragraph under "Spinoza".
    • Done.
  • First sentance, second paragraph under "Psychological manisfestation".
    • Done.
  • First and/or second sentance under "Physical manisfestation".
    • I removed the second sentence (I can't find a good enough citation for it), and I think the first sentence needs no specific, separate citation as it is so general and is supported by so many.
  • Clear up specify tag under "Modern interpretations".
    • Will do this tomorrow. -- Rmrfstar 03:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Done! -- Rmrfstar 20:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Address these issues and I believe it would meet GA standards. Vassyana 14:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking good. Vassyana 12:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that all of your objections have been addressed as of now. -- Rmrfstar 20:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review (Passed)

  1. Well-written. The writing is clear and fairly concise. It is clean and provides a reader an excellant overview of the topic.
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable. The article is well-cited and provides an accurate presentation of the topic. There is room for improvement. The article could have a greater number of references to provide a broader coverage of available sources and to provide information to flesh out the article more.
  3. Broad in coverage. Certainly covers all the bases and gives a solid impression of the breadth of the subject. Again, there is still room for improvement. Short sections could be expanded. Additional sources could provide additional interpretations and viewpoints for the article.
  4. Neutral point of view. No problems at all. The presentation is interesting but neutral.
  5. Stable. The article is stable.
  6. Images. Good use of images, but perhaps reconsider selection and placement to better compliment the article.

Overall, well within GA standards, but definately room for improvement. If someone was looking to bring this up to 1.0 or FA status, I would recommend the above mentioned improvements and a peer review. Good job on the article. Vassyana 21:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few comments

I, Cryptic, will add notes here as I read through the article.

Lede

  • This sentence, Often the concept is associated with God's will in a pantheist view of Nature, as Spinoza used it, though not always. is obnoxiously worded.
Done.

Classical origins

  • What exactly is ὁρμήν? This is the English wiki, not the Greekish wiki.
I don't know... it's Greek to me!
  • Cicero's full name is given as a caption to the picture, but not in the prose. Perhaps you should consider putting the full name next to Diogenes Laertius for consistency, and replacing the caption with information about the medium and origin of that sculpture.
OK.
  • There's no time frame whatsoever. The reader should be familiar with the basic time line of these definitions without having to click the links to the philosophers' articles.
Done.
  • "impetus" should be replaced with a more commonly used word. Wikilinking it doesn't help, as impetus is just a disambig with definition that really makes sense here.
I used a different word because impetus happens to be a technical term used elswhere in a different sense within the article.
  • The last paragraph just boggles me. Is it about science or romance?
Metaphysics, a mixture of the two.

In Teh Psychzor

  • Missing a quotation mark after threatens this peace. (fixed)
  • I truly loathe the second quote. Who said it? Schmitter? Given that it's such a large and dense chunk of text, it should either be set off as a block quote or paraphrased.
I separated it from the text.

In Fizyx

Why not, indeed?
  • The plural conatuses is used for the first time here. I had been under the impression that conatus (which, by the way, needs to be italicized consistently) was not a quantifiable noun.
I reworded this.
  • No comma needed in springs, and bladders for example. (fixed)
  • I before e except after c. (fixed)

Spinach

  • Specify!
  • Wtf is conatus sese conservandi?
I have defined this in the article.
  • Use a consistent tense. You flip-flopped from he used the term to he most often uses.
I believe I have fixed this.
  • as Descartes had before even him yarg. I had to read that one 5 or 6 times to understand it.
Better?

I'd keep going, but I have no attention span. It's time to watch porn. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/n/Talk%7EConatus_6839.html"