Talk:Philosophical Gourmet Report
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
What's the "Giurmand Report"? Is this supposed to be the "Gourman Report" - the one by Jack Gourman?
[edit] List
There are far too many lists in this article! It's like a list of lists!
Philosophers are good at expressing large sets of data in list form, I guess.Llamabr 21:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestions for improving this article
This is quite an impressive article for a topic non-philosophers might call "obscure"! However, I'd like to see it get a major rewrite to bring it into compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and the Wikipedia Manual of Style. My main concerns about the article are listed below.
- The article contains extensive "pro and con" lists, which are unacceptable for a variety of reasons, including some listed below. The information in these lists, if it is neutral and verifiable, needs to be incorporated into the main body of the article in descriptive, encyclopedic prose.
- In particular, the article seems to be devolving into open debate in the Suggested improvements and/or alternatives section. For example, one point in this section currently reads: "A more proportionally representative sample of the board in terms of geography and area of specialisation. (Response: but the board is already representative: what would be the relevant proportions?)" This discussion needs to be removed from the article and taken to a forum or blog.
- The article lacks inline citations. Adding these is necessary so that readers and editors can more easily determine whether the information comes from reliable sources. A guide to adding inline citations can be found here.
- Wikipedia is not an advice column. The "suggested advice" section is inappropriate both for that reason and also because:
-
- It is an unreferenced synthesis of already unreferenced material.
- As such, it probably qualifies as original research. "No original research" is one of the cornerstone policies of Wikipedia.
- It addresses the reader as "you", making substantial assumptions about his/her background, education, and career aspirations. Prospective philosophy graduate students are certainly not the only audience for this article.
- It makes normative statements about how the report should be used. Encyclopedia articles are not in the business of telling people what they should do.
Since a rewrite of these proportions would involve massive changes to the article, I thought the best thing was just to add some templates highlighting what's going on in the article and post my concerns on the talk page. The editors who are already familiar with this article will probably have a much better idea than I of what can be done to improve it. I hope this has been helpful. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 07:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
