Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hilary Putnam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Hilary Putnam

The old nomination was virtally incomprehensible to me. The article looks pretty good to me, so I am restarting this nom. Raul654 02:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • By the end it was around 20 supports, but yeah, it was incomprehensible. Longest FAC ever? Gave even Bulbasaur a run for its money. Anyway, support; all my objections were taken care of in the previous nom. Only thing I can think of is reducing the size of the Turing machine section, but not a big deal. --Spangineeres (háblame) 02:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per Spangineer. — Deckiller 02:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Sandy 02:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; apart from the massive improvements in referencing and prose, the new images lift it. Tony 03:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per my previous entry. Outriggr 03:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great job by everyone! InvictaHOG 04:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Gimmetrow 04:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is remarkably well-written, and the fact that it's so comprehensible to people with a non-philosophical background is particularly impressive. Rebecca 04:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - as far as content goes, one of the best philosophy articles I've come across on WP. Much improved in technical aspects (footnotes etc.) since originally nominated, too. Sam Clark 09:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as before. Very good article, nicely referenced, interesting to read. Any sign of a licence for the Putnam image? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Not yet. But I have a question for the copyright folks. Is this sort of thing permisible- W.V.O. Quine- under fair use?? The book-cover photo,I mean. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about using a book cover, but I see no reason that you couldn't use a fair use one e.g. from his website until you have the status of the one he sent you sorted out. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
No, no, no thanks!! I got nailed on Website images with the Fodor article. I need the experts in here.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Jkelly is a good person to ask. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I just got an email from Dr. Putnam, explicitly releasing the image under CC-BY-SA-2.5, so we're set. I've added it to the article. --Spangineeres (háblame) 17:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations and good work. Jkelly 18:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support — Supporting, as before. Well written, well edited, and greatly improved from when the nomination process began. It's certainly FA quality, and with the massive collaboration that's gone on, it definitely exemplifies some of our best work here at Wikipedia. It's got support from me all the way. Ryu Kaze 12:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - as before, to the extent that I understand what an FA is supposed to be, the discussion on "what is an FA?" is almost as incomprehensible to me. Bmorton3 14:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - this wiki made me like Hilary Putnam, so it must be good. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 15:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as before --PresN 16:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support an article that should have sailed through the process. Banno 20:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as before. --Ori.livneh 00:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A well-written article. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, it looks like a featured article. Ashibaka tock 14:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object:
    1. There are too many purely decorative and non-informative images in this article. The images of Rudolf Carnap and Kant certainly don't belong, and the PLP symbol is borderline.
    2. In an image caption, don't write about the image; write about what it depicts and how this is related to the article subject. (If the image doesn't actually contribute any information, remove it per #1.) The captions "Artistic representation of a Turing machine" and "Illustration of brain in vat and mad scientist" are both hideous. (Are we showing them because Putnam drew them, or what?)
Fredrik Johansson 23:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Just so I can keep track here. This has been addresed. Images removed.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. I think your complaints are valid actually. I threw the Kant, Carnap and PLP images in because they are basically the only ones I could find related in some remote way to Putnam and/or his philosophy. If you the consensus wants them out, then they're gone. I'll think your caption objection, on the other hand, is self-contradictory: "captions should explain what it the photo depicts" and "the captions...are hideous". Those captions clearly decsribe what they depict. In what sense are they hideous? None of the are really subtantive MOS objections, BTW. That is, this is the kind of complaint that should be described somewhere of it is a requirement for FAs. NO?? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
There's an important difference between the image itself and what it depicts. "Illustration of X" is about the image and "X" is about what it depicts; the latter is better simply because the former is obvious and redundant. (But my main objection to those captions is that they don't establish why the pictures are relevant.) The featured article criteria say: "complies with the standards set out in the style manual". The relevant section is Wikipedia:Captions, which says:
There are several criteria for a good caption. A good caption
1. clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious.
2. is succinct.
3. establishes the picture's relevance to the article.
4. provides context for the picture.
5. draws the reader into the article.
6. is either a title, like the title of a book or else consists of one or more complete sentences.
See that page for more details. Fredrik Johansson 09:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Fredrik, again this is fair enough. My only conern is that I will now have to delete all of the pics (except for Putnam himself) and then somone will come along and protest about the lack of pics!! I have removed Carnap, Kant, PLP. I really can't think of anyway to link the brain-in-a vat or Turing machine photos into the text (excpet in the redunant way your described), so I am going to delete. I will thereny have addreddes your objections. I will leave it to others to try to iluustarte this thing, if it possible. OK??--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's fine now; note that I've re-added the Turing and brain-in-a-vat images with tweaked captions which I think are fine. Objection struck. I can't support since I haven't read the text in full, but it looks fantastic; good work! Fredrik Johansson 10:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.Period. Don't want to fill this page up like the last one.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • support finnaly we get to see his pic. No doubt he is a he. lol. --Pedro 10:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Extremely understandable and readable for someone who doesn't know anything about philosophy (me). Andrew Levine 18:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per my previous support. It's great that we got a picture of him now, but I really feel that it is a shame that the "brain in a vat" illustration looks so amateurish. If anybody with some drawing skills are reading this nomination, would you be willing to make a better version of the illustration. That is one that don't take two minutes to create. I don't agree with people saying that this nomination should have sailed through the process. Look at the version before the nomination and you will see that it was not FA material. Nominating an article without references should not be permitted. --Maitch 12:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator. I didn't know this was permitted, but here it is FWIW.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 17:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as before. - Jmabel | Talk 18:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - With a current tally of (22/0/0), I think this one might pass. --PresN 04:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Fanatastic article; yes, this will pass. Poor Yorick 08:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)