Talk:Paradox of analysis: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Your article fully describes the paradox. Any oblivious reader can stumble upon your article and immediately become familiar with the paradox of analysis. There is no bias and the sources are definitely credible. Your article is straight to the point in an encyclopedic fashion, however it is also somewhat definitional, perhaps due to the length. This is not necessarily a weakness of your article, but there may be room for additional sections. For example, on the Wikipedia page for "Raven paradox" there are sections for proposed resolutions and solutions. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox> I understand that this paradox may be easier to expand upon than yours, but perhaps there are resolutions or some other scholarly discussions that may be pertinent to your article and make a good addition to it. After looking at the additional references suggested by the previous peer reviewer, I think you have enough resources to find any information that may contribute to adding another section. Also, I remember you said that you have found another resource which may be useful as well. Good work. [[User:Nbarnes32|Nbarnes32]] ([[User talk:Nbarnes32|talk]]) 15:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |
Your article fully describes the paradox. Any oblivious reader can stumble upon your article and immediately become familiar with the paradox of analysis. There is no bias and the sources are definitely credible. Your article is straight to the point in an encyclopedic fashion, however it is also somewhat definitional, perhaps due to the length. This is not necessarily a weakness of your article, but there may be room for additional sections. For example, on the Wikipedia page for "Raven paradox" there are sections for proposed resolutions and solutions. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox> I understand that this paradox may be easier to expand upon than yours, but perhaps there are resolutions or some other scholarly discussions that may be pertinent to your article and make a good addition to it. After looking at the additional references suggested by the previous peer reviewer, I think you have enough resources to find any information that may contribute to adding another section. Also, I remember you said that you have found another resource which may be useful as well. Good work. [[User:Nbarnes32|Nbarnes32]] ([[User talk:Nbarnes32|talk]]) 15:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
Your page looks good- you chose an interesting and very complex topic and it is evident that the Paradox of Analysis is something that personally fascinates you. One of the most important aspects of this assignment as we write our individual Wikipedia articles is to recognize your audience and keep in mind that both the extremely knowledgeable AND uniformed might search this topic. It is important to speak to the masses and perhaps tone down the extremely intellectual and complex ideas you mention. I found your topic, at times, hard to understand having no prior familiarity with the Paradox of Analysis. Also, I think you should state in the first opening sentence exactly what it is- a definition, theory, idea, etc.? Be as specific as possible without losing the attention span of your audience. Lastly, expand more on your topic; your article is rather short and will benefit by adding some more background information, important people associated with the topic, links, etc...anything of relevance. Great start- just keep updating the page! -Virginia Knott --[[User:Vknott|Vknott]] ([[User talk:Vknott|talk]]) 03:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 03:45, 8 April 2009
 | Philosophy: Logic / Analytic Stub‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This was interesting topic. Overall, I think you have a good start on your article. Great job on giving some of examples of 'paradox of analysis'. I didn't get this analysis at first but after I read some of examples, I clearly understood about this topic. One of the resource page was from 'The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy' which gave me some credibility. Also it presents information in an well objective manner includes all sides of an issue represented. If you were looking to add length to your article, you could summarize Plato's Meno breifly. Other than, I can't think of anything to expand. I find few articles that are related with your topic. You might find other informations to expand. Overall, great job~
1. Title: Analysis, Language, and Concepts: The Second Paradox of Analysis by Felicia Ackerman http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/sici?sici=1520-8583%281990%294%3A%3C535%3AALACTSPOA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1&origin=serialsolutions&cookieSet=1
2. Title: The Paradox of Analysis by Richard A. Fumerton http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/stable/2107643?seq=
Your article fully describes the paradox. Any oblivious reader can stumble upon your article and immediately become familiar with the paradox of analysis. There is no bias and the sources are definitely credible. Your article is straight to the point in an encyclopedic fashion, however it is also somewhat definitional, perhaps due to the length. This is not necessarily a weakness of your article, but there may be room for additional sections. For example, on the Wikipedia page for "Raven paradox" there are sections for proposed resolutions and solutions. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox> I understand that this paradox may be easier to expand upon than yours, but perhaps there are resolutions or some other scholarly discussions that may be pertinent to your article and make a good addition to it. After looking at the additional references suggested by the previous peer reviewer, I think you have enough resources to find any information that may contribute to adding another section. Also, I remember you said that you have found another resource which may be useful as well. Good work. Nbarnes32 (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Your page looks good- you chose an interesting and very complex topic and it is evident that the Paradox of Analysis is something that personally fascinates you. One of the most important aspects of this assignment as we write our individual Wikipedia articles is to recognize your audience and keep in mind that both the extremely knowledgeable AND uniformed might search this topic. It is important to speak to the masses and perhaps tone down the extremely intellectual and complex ideas you mention. I found your topic, at times, hard to understand having no prior familiarity with the Paradox of Analysis. Also, I think you should state in the first opening sentence exactly what it is- a definition, theory, idea, etc.? Be as specific as possible without losing the attention span of your audience. Lastly, expand more on your topic; your article is rather short and will benefit by adding some more background information, important people associated with the topic, links, etc...anything of relevance. Great start- just keep updating the page! -Virginia Knott --Vknott (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)