User talk:HistorianofLogic

User talk:Peter Damian
This page is a soft redirect.

Is it: (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;

I believe it is well-written.

(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;

It is comprehensive: it covers all the main periods of logic from antiquity to the present day.

(c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;

The main materials for this article were from my extensive logic library. I relied extensively on Kneale and Kneale's history of logic.

(d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and

the topic of logic is, I hope, entirely neutral and bias-free.

(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.

there has never been an edit war over this article

It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of— (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;

The lead summarises exactly what is in the main sections.

(b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and

yes

(c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (^[1]) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p.

Citations are mostly Harvard style (I would appreciate help on this though)

Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

The article uses summary style throughout.

— HistorianofLogic

Comment by Charles Stewart

Sorry, not signed in, IP 77.23.100.135 (talk)

I will say a little more about my criticism on the talk page, though probably not all that soon. I have only read the current version briefly, although I have read earlier incarnations of this page closely; I have made efforts to double-check my comments below against the current version, but it is possible I have not been completely thorough.

(Content a) Very good standard

(b) I think it covers the bases. I count myself an expert on logic, although history of logic is a weaker area for me.

(c+d) A mostly excellent standard.

• You clearly know more about Stoic Logic than I do, but I am bothered by the neglect of Chrysippus, who I think is now regarded as the most important Stoic logician, one who was an important influence on Lukasiewicz. I am sorry to say, i don't think I can repair this properly, although the SEP article does provide material to balance coverage in this area.
• Modern logic:
  • Psychologism deserves more treatment than as an indirect reference in an aside on Peirce.
  • The periods of modern logic section is very good, except that I would not have treated the period from WWII in this way. Topics are treated that I don't consider of such high importance (e.g., deontic logic), crucial topics omitted (e.g., the 'Entscheidungsproblem'), and some topics handled less than deftly (e.g., set theory). I can fix these.

(e) I agree, stable. The quality of expert contributions to this article has generally been appreciated by editors with an interest in the article.

(Style a+b) Exemplary use of summary style.

(c) I haven't look closely at this. With Harvard style, it is a little perverse to separate the date from the author in the list of references (although that is exactly what ISO 690 mandates, which several medical journals combine with Harvard style!). I recommend following the style used in the Logic article.

I am pleased to see there is will to take this deserving article to FA status, and I think the issues with the article can be repaired with moderate effort, which I will, eventually, be willing to invest. — Charles Stewart signed 09:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I think most of these comments can easily by addressed. The problem with post WWII is that I am not an expert on modern logic.