Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leucippus/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 March 2024 [1].

Leucippus

Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leucippus was the first person to propose that matter is made of microscopic particles called atoms. What makes this impressive is that he lived over 2,000 years before atoms were actually discovered. Of course, Leucippus's atoms were quite different from the ones we know to exist: he contended that they were totally indivisible, and that they came in infinitely many shapes and sizes. Using his concept of atoms, he developed explanations for the creation of the world and the existence of a physical soul. Despite his importance in the history of philosophy, almost all information about his life and his writings has been lost, and what we know comes from second-hand accounts. He has since been overshadowed by his more famous student, Democritus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging everyone who provided feedback as I'm now caught up on everyone's comments:
PatrickJWelsh, Caeciliusinhorto, Nikkimaria, UndercoverClassicist, Phlsph7. Thanks for all the input so quickly after I nominated this for FAC! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Caeciliusinhorto

  • Comment: I have little experience with FAC, but here are a few comments based on a quick once-over:
  1. It would be beneficial to add descriptors to philosophers so that readers can, at minimum, easily distinguish between Leucippus' near-contemporaries and much later philosophers like Leibniz and Cassier.
  2. Quite understandably, much is made of his status as a "precursor" theorist to modern theories of the atom. But could this be developed a little bit more? Specifically, in what ways is our current theory different? Are the similarities anything more than an accident? This might be elaborated, for instance, by explaining why, contrary to what one would expect, Heisenberg considers Plato to provide a more accurate theory of reality than Leucippus.
  3. Doesn't the MOS require the Life section to appear Philosophy? (I believe I've been chastised for trying to reverse this at some point in the past...) Additionally, should the first paragraph of the Legacy section also precede Philosophy in some form?
  4. The sources look to be of high-quality and include those I would consult as someone who is trained in philosophy, but not at all a scholar of the period. I was a bit frustrated, however, to have to find n. 44 (Kirk & Raven 1957, p. 412) in the second edition at p. 419, where it finds only qualified support for the claim it is cited to support. Also, is my recollection incorrect (entirely possible!) that it is standard to include the passage number even when citing to the commentary? (This would also make using the first edition less of an issue.)

I will try to check back in later in the process after reviewing the specific FAC criteria. Overall, though, great work! Thanks for doing so much to contribute to the coverage of the history of philosophy —

Cheers,

talk) 20:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

I think it's reasonable to include the basics of his ideas in the philosophy section and then the subsequent study of those ideas in the legacy section. I've made edits to address all of your other comments, adding context for some of the names, expanding on the comparison to modern atomic theory, and switching the life and philosophy sections. Regarding your fourth point, I wasn't able to verify some of that information in other sources, so I trimmed it down to what is in the main text of Kirk & Raven without any need for the footnote. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: I verified it with more detail using another source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks on 1-3! I remain concerned about 4, however.
I cite from a phone-quality text scan of the second edition of the work you cite:

Since there are innumerable atoms and an infinite void, there is no reason why only one such world should be formed; Leucippus and Democritus therefore postulated innumerable worlds, coming-to-be and passing away throughout the void (563 init., 565). They are the first to whom we can with absolute certainty attribute the concept of innumerable worlds (as opposed to successive states of a continuing organism), one which is reached entirely on the a priori grounds described above. The doxographers, however, certainly attributed the idea of plural worlds (whether coexistent or successive) to some Ionians, conceivably by an error initiated by Theophrastus (see pp. 123ff., also pp. 379f.). Democritus, according to 565, seems to have embellished the idea by observing that there is no need for each world to have a sun and moon, and so on, or to have waters and give rise to life: the random nature of the cosmogonical process 563 would not always produce the same result. (p.419, my emphases)

Shouldn't this qualification be included in the article?
talk) 22:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Generally I think that this is pretty inaccessible to non-specialists: a lot of it left me feeling like I was missing some fairly fundamental details. For instance, we are told that Leucippus' atomism followed on from Empedocles' philosophy - but as a reader who has no idea what Empedocles' philosophy actually was that leaves me more rather than less confused! More specific comments:

  • Twice the earth is described as a "titled disc"; should they read "tilted" instead?
    • Fixed.
  • "other worlds must exist as cosmos are formed elsewhere": the minor point here is that I would expect "cosmoses" for the plural; the more substantive point is that I find this whole explanation of Leucippus' cosmology to be hopelessly confusing.
    • I rewrote the cosmology section to explain things more simply. Let me know if it's still unclear.
  • "Leucippus agreed with these conclusions, but..." This doesn't sound very much like Leucippus agreed with the Eleatics conclusions! I suppose what is meant here is that he thought the Eleatics' reasoning was valid but their premises were false?
    • Correct. I reworded it.
  • "Leucippus asserted the existence infinite atoms and a void that extends infinitely." - should this read "the existence of an infinite number of atoms"?
    • Fixed.
  • "He was born in the first half of the 5th century BCE, but the exact dates are unknown. He presumably developed atomism during the 430s BCE" - in the lead he is described as pre-Socratic, but these dates make him pretty much a contemporary of Socrates?
    • It took some digging, but I found a source that explains this and I added it.
  • "Most historical sources describe Leucippus as ... but Epicurus has also been recorded denying the existence of Leucippus." A lot of words telling us virtually nothing useful. Who are these some sources/other sources? Are the "most historical sources" from antiquity? Why do they think Leucippus was a student of Zeno?
    • I went through and attributed what I could. I changed it to "Leucippus is traditionally understood to have been a student of Zeno of Elea", because unless I'm missing something, that's all we really know.
  • "One proposal is that he was born in Miletus ..." again, whose proposal is this and why should i care?
    • Attributed to some of the people who proposed it.
  • "Aristotle's record of Leucippus and Democritus's philosophy is the oldest such record that still exists in the modern day": repetition of record. Surely there's a more concise way of saying this. How about "Aristotle's record of Leucippus and Democritus's philosophy is the oldest surviving source"?
    • Reworded.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That should be all of the specific comments addressed. I can't really judge what else might be clear or unclear, but I can do more rewording wherever it's necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally looking a lot better. It looks like the dates on some of your citations have got messed up though – all of the Augustin/Pello, Furley, and Kirk/Raven sfns are not correctly linking through to the bibliographic entries. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. A reviewer below had me switch the years to the most recent editions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be something wrong with your citations to Barnes 1982 - none of the page numbers seem to match up with the version on archive.org. I've spotchecked a couple other sources and there don't seem to be the same issues, but I checked several citations to Barnes and they all appear to be wrong. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Caeciliusinhorto, good catch! It looks like the version on archive.org is a reprint. I've matched up all of the cited passages to where they appear in the reprint and changed the page numbers accordingly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Caeciliusinhorto, just checking in to see if you have any more thoughts on the article since it's been a couple weeks. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thebiguglyalien: Apolgies for the delay in getting back to you - I was ill when you pinged me and then real life got in the way. I don't have any more notes for you, so support Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding
    alt text
  • Note
    this guidance
    regarding captioning
  • File:Pinacoteca_Querini_Stampalia_-_Leucippus_-_Luca_Giordano.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Leucippus._Line_engraving_by_S._Beyssent_after_Mlle_C._Reyde_Wellcome_V0003528.jpg
  • File:Magna_Graecia_ancient_colonies_and_dialects-eu.svg: see
    MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It's not clear what specific changes you want me to make regarding the map (sidenote, I didn't realize this image was "in the article" or even existed until you listed it). I've made all other suggested changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few options: for example, you could add a non-colour-based marker to distinguish the sections, or you could simply remove/replace the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. The change affected a few hundred pages, but the image wasn't exactly doing much good, even before the accessibility issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

Will be along in a bit for a proper review. Generally, I'd echo what Caecilius and others have said above: there are a few places where we need to go a little slower and explain the steps of thought. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few quick Parthian shots:

A few more:

That should be all of the points addressed so far. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more, plus a couple of replies above:

  • Transliterated Greek (e.g. Megas Diakosmos) should be in the transl|grc template.
    • Done.
  • I would give an orig-date to McKirahan so that people are aware it's fundamentally a 1994 book, not a 2011 one.
    • Done.
  • "Nothing happens at random, but everything from reason and by necessity": could one of the footnotes clarify whose translation this is, and perhaps supply the Greek text? Presocratic fragments are often laconic and up for interpretation in the translating process.
    • The Greek text is in the "Works" section. Several sources repeat various translations, but not a single one that I've seen attributes any of the translations. I've used the one where the same wording appears in two different sources.
      • It would be useful to have a link to it here: I wonder if moving the Greek to a footnote (since few of our readers can understand it) and linking it from both places would be a good way forward. A section link would be another option. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was reminiscent of the Greek philosopher Anaximander's argument: as with Aristotle, a rough date would be useful.
    • I added the century.
  • Simplicius of Cilicia : again, a date would help: we're nearly a millennium after Aristotle and in a very different world.
    • Added the century.
  • he formed a possible solution to the paradoxes of motion created by Zeno of Elea: we should explain, perhaps in a footnote, what these paradoxes were and how Leucippus claimed to resolve them.
    • I added that they "held that indivisibility made motion impossible".
  • Along with Democritus, Leucippus was the first philosopher: this is contradictory: unless they published a joint work, only one can be first.
    • Fixed.
  • vortexes: I'd write the plural as vortices, but this might be an AmerE thing.
    • A search suggests that they're both correct but vorticies is more common, so I switched it.
  • Aristotle's record of Leucippus and Democritus's philosophy is the oldest surviving source on the subject: again, we really need a date.
    • Added.
  • Aristotle challenged atomism because he deemed it insufficient to explain why stone falls but fire rises: we need some explanation here as to why it would be expected to explain that, and perhaps why Aristotle thought it didn't (did he think it incompatible, or simply incomplete?)
    • Reworded.
  • Modern philosophy generally takes more interest in Leucippus's atomism than his cosmology: weren't these pretty much the same thing, to Leucippus at least?
    • Changes to "concept of atoms".
UndercoverClassicist, I've replied to everything and made the appropriate changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your replies, time and changes so far. Just to put it on record, I'm going to leave this one as comments: I don't feel I sufficiently understand the subject matter to put my weight behind a support or oppose. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I'm happy to see another philosophy article at FAC. I'll get started with the source review.

  • Graham 2008, p. 335, 348n12. replace "p." with "pp."
  • Vamvacas 2009, p. 127, 133. replace "p." with "pp."
  • Graham 2008, p. 333, 348n1. replace "p." with "pp."
  • in the section "References", "Gregory, Andrew (2013)..." should come after "Graham, Daniel W. (2008)..."
  • in the section "References", I would suggest splitting "Zilioli, Ugo (2020)..." and "Gregory, Andrew..." into two independent items since other chapters in books also get their own item (like "Graham, Daniel W. (2008)..."). Both can have the same parameters for title, editor, etc. They differ concerning their parameters first1, last1, and chapter.
  • the citation-templates are not consistent in their use of title case vs sentence case. I suggest using title case everywhere, for example, "The atomists" -> "The Atomists" and "The founders of Western thought: the presocratics a diachronic parallelism between Presocratic thought and philosophy and the natural sciences" -> "The Founders of Western Thought: The Presocratics a Diachronic Parallelism Between Presocratic Thought and Philosophy and the Natural Sciences"
  • the books and journal articles are all from high-quality publishers, such as Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, and Routledge
  • WP:EARWIG shows one match with https://pantheon.world/profile/occupation/philosopher/country/greece. However, the same page copied the lead sections from various Wikipedia entries, such as Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates and they also mention Wikipedia once. I guess it's safe to assume that they copied from this article as well rather than the other way around.

Phlsph7 (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made all suggested changes to the references. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TBUA, apologies Phlsph. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy response. Continuing the review:

  • Leucippus and Democritus proposed that heat, fire, and the soul are made of spherical atoms, as these are most able to move past one another and cause the others to move.[44] They believed in a material soul that drives motion in living things, and they described respiration as the process of expelling soul atoms and absorbing new ones.[44] you can remove the first reference of [44] since that sentence is already covered by the second one.
  • the same applies to:
    • The former may have originally been tilted The World System and then later renamed to avoid confusion with Democritus's The Little World System.[22] Leucippus's The Great World System has sometimes been attributed to Democritus, which may have been an effect of Democritus including it among his corpus as the foundation of his work.[22]
    • Leucippus's atomism was a direct response to Eleatic philosophy.[30][31] The Eleatics believed that nothingness, or the void, cannot exist in its own right. They concluded that if there is no void, then there is no motion and all things must be one.[30][31]
    • when Pierre Gassendi was its most prominent advocate.[75] It was influential in the development of early atomic theories in the 18th and 19th centuries,[75]
  • very short spotcheck
    • Leucippus and Democritus proposed that heat, fire, and the soul are made of spherical atoms, as these are most able to move past one another and cause the others to move.[44] supported by Augustin & Pellò 2021, pp. 615–616
    • Death then coincides with the last breath, as soul atoms are no longer being replenished. Sleep is a similar state in which a reduced number of soul atoms are in the body.[45] supported by Augustin & Pellò 2021, pp. 617–618
    • Among scholars who argue against Leucippus's existence, alternate ideas have been proposed: Leucippus may have been a pseudonym of Democritus, or he may have been a character in a dialogue.[1] supported by Graham 2008, p. 335
    • He described the stars as orbiting the fastest, causing them to ignite through friction.[57] the relevant passages from Graham 2008, p. 339 seem to be: The fixed stars move most swiftly... and Democritus’s heavenly bodies are traveling with the vortex, they cannot be illuminated by friction, as Leucippus’s bodies seem to be. The second part of igniting through friction is more weakly expressed in the source than in our article. Maybe there is another source that supports the stronger claim or it could be reformulated.

Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phlsph7, I've removed the redundant citations, and I changed the sentence about the stars. I removed the bit about friction and replaced it with a description of the stars' formation, which was given more attention by the sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, the source check is a pass. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you use |url= and |url-access=subscription for the publisher’s link instead of just consistently using |doi=? Barnes 1982 could have

doi:10.4324/9780203007372 and that would allow you to put a convenience link in |url= like to Archive.org [2] if you so chose. To me it seems redundant to have the URL repeat the destination the DOI provides. In general you seem inconsistent in your use of DOIs. Umimmak (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

I've added DOIs and Archive.org URLs where applicable, and I removed URLs duplicated by DOIs. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you the DOI for Barnes 1982 above, or are you finding that's not the right identifier for your source? In addition Gregory 2020 is
ISBN-13 for works where that's anachronistic; per WP:ISBN However, if an older work only lists an ISBN-10, use that in citations instead of calculating an ISBN-13 for it. This is because ISBNs are often used as search strings and checksum differences between the two forms make it difficult to find items listed only under the other type. Is it standard in this field to have the full date when citing journals? Also Augustin and Pellò was published online on July 12, 2021, but in general you should cite the final version when possible, I think, no? So the final published version with page numbers appeared in 2022? But maybe this is field-dependent. Umimmak (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I've made the changes, though the references section no longer reflects the versions of Kirk & Raven 1957 and Augustin & Pellò 2021 that are actually used in the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean… can you not just use the most current version of these sources in the article? Don’t cite something you’re not using, but you should use the most current version of a source unless there’s a reason to not do so. Umimmak (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The danger of citing a different version is that the page numbers may not fit and the text may also be slightly changed. I'm not aware of an FA requirement to always cite the latest version, so I would suggest sticking with the version that was used when writing the article. If it's important to mention the new version in a specific case, what about adding the more recent source in parenthesis in the reference section, something like:
  • Barnes, Jonathan (1982). The Presocratic Philosophers. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203007372. ISBN 0-415-20351-1. (later republished in/as: ...)
Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that Kirk and Raven (1957) was revised throughout for the second edition Kirk, Raven, and Schofield (1983). Citing an edition rendered obsolete forty years ago by its original authors raises my eyebrows.
Also, the page numbers are different, and so citations must be given to the edition actually being cited.
That said, I'm not going to stand in the way of the nomination on these grounds—especially as there does not appear to be a copy available anywhere online.
talk) 16:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments from JM

Really fantastic to see this here. Leucippus is the sort of person I don't know about but probably should.

I've genuinely learnt a lot. I have a lecture where I mention Democritus in passing; I'll mention Leucippus next time I do it! Josh Milburn (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn I replied to each comment. I made most of the suggested changes, though there are a few that are a little more complicated and I'm curious how you'd approach them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few more replies. In cases where you've pushed back/explained and I've not replied, assume I'm happy! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn, I'm assuming the epistemology was the only part where a change was needed right now. I made an effort to get it all organized, though I'm not sure if it makes sense as written. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn, just checking in. Is there anything else here that needs a closer look? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hoped to take another look at the article (perhaps placing it alongside the Stanford article) before offering support, but the directors shouldn't feel obliged to wait for me; finding a spare hour or two for this sort of thing is increasingly challenging! Josh Milburn (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Josh, without wanting to nag, I wondered if you have had any further thoughts on this one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Please don't hold up the review on my account; if there's a consensus to promote, please go ahead. I'm very busy in the dreaded real world at present, so finding a couple of hours for this is proving a challenge. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shapeyness

Very interesting article! Some comments below. Shapeyness (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The atoms postulated by Leucippus always hold the same shape and size, but they constantly change their position and their arrangements with one another, and they come in infinitely many shapes and sizes because there is no reason why they should not. This is a slightly confusing wording imo - would something like this work: "The atoms postulated by Leucippus come in infinitely many shapes and sizes, although the size and shape of each atom is fixed and unchanging. They are in a state of constant motion and continuously change arrangements with one another."?
    • I used your wording, but I kept the reasoning of "no reason why not" because that's an explicit part of his philosophy.
  • Leucippus's atomism applied the ontology of Eleatic philosophy to an empirical understanding of the world being an entirely physical phenomenon I'm not 100% sure I understand what this is saying.
    • Honestly I had to read the sources a few times to get a sense of what they were saying. I reworded it to this: "Leucippus's atomism kept the concepts of reality developed by the Eleatics, but it applied them to a physical explanation of the world." Hopefully that's a little clearer, or at least in the right direction?
  • It is unclear whether Leucippus's contemporary Diogenes of Apollonia responded to Leucippus or if Leucippus responded to Diogenes... Since Diogenes of Apollonia is not mentioned up to this point in the article, this comes a bit out of nowhere and seems a little confusing - maybe if the sentences were flipped it would make more sense, e.g. "According to Diogenes Laertius, Diogenes of Apollonia's interpretation of the void may have been inspired by Leucippus, although it is unclear which of the two wrote on the subject first."
    • I've simply removed the part about who influenced who, since it's redundant and the other sources don't acknowledge it.
  • The main practical difference between Leucippus's atomism and modern atomic theory is introduction of non-tangible phenomena such as mass–energy equivalence and fundamental forces. This is supported by the source, but are there any other sources that discuss the differences between Leucippus's atomism and modern atomic theory? I would associate mass–energy equivalence and fundamental forces more with relativity and particle physics than with emergence of atomic theory. If not, then no need to change anything about this!
    • This was the source that broke them down and compared them. Personally I think it's relevant to list continued advances after the development of modern atomic theory.
  • Modern scholars who have rejected the existence of Leucippus include... Personally I don't think this list is necessary, but feel free to ignore this one :)
    • I don't either, but reviewers took issue with people not being named.
Shapeyness, I've replied to the comments. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Thebiguglyalien! Looking through the SEP pages for Leucippus and the ancient atomists, this article seems to cover all the same major points. The only other thing I noticed is night was caused by the Sun moving behind the lifted end of the Earth in the lead is not actually mentioned in the main body of the article. Shapeyness (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shapeyness, I removed it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last thing, there seem to be a number of citation errors due to dates not matching up between the citations and source list - specifically for the Kirk & Raven and Hurley sources. Shapeyness (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was an effect of a reviewer above telling me to use the most recent years instead of the ones from the versions I consulted. I've updated the years. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had one last look to check if there are any other sources that could be used to talk about differences/similarities between Leucippus and modern atomic theory and couldn't find anything better than the source already used. I'm not an expert, but based on the sources I've read, this article seems comprehensive and accurate. It's also well-written and structured, and meets the other FA criteria, so I'll support for FA. Shapeyness (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually consulted the newer editions? Maybe
PatrickJWelsh and I disagree on this, but my sense is that if you're citing an edition, it should be one you actually used. And if there's no difference (e.g., we're talking about a reprinting rather than a new edition) you should cite the original, not the most recent. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't love using an edition that was superseded forty years ago, but the first edition is still easily a RS. The impetus of my original objection was that there was a qualification in the second edition of a claim made in the article, which I wrongly assumed had only been introduced in the second. Since that has now been sourced to the first edition, which was used in the creation of the article, I no longer see any content-based reason to object to its current state.
talk) 15:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Understood, and I agree that there are good reasons to favour updated editions over originals all else equal. @Shapeyness: Could you confirm that the article doesn't presently contain references to any sources you haven't used? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
Josh Milburn: I think you mean to tag Thebiguglyalien? Shapeyness (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
J Milburn, yes, they all now correspond to the versions that I used. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PJW

I have just re-read the article and made a few minor edits with descriptions. Please revert if they do not make sense.

I have also reacquainted myself with the FAC criteria, and so can offer the following assessment:

(Edit: This is in addition to my comments above, which have been addressed to my satisfaction. I did not realize I was supposed to create a section header for myself, and so it has been somewhat obscured that I did in fact weigh in at the beginning of this process—although, to be sure, not so thoroughly as some of the other editors, who I would encourage to weigh in with their own recommendations. I stand by my own confident motion of support, but am qualified only to be a member of a deciding body, not the decider-in-chief.

talk) 19:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC))[reply
]

The article is well-written, coherently structured, and introduced with an accessible, well-crafted lead. It appears to be neither longer nor shorter than the topic merits. The bibliography is shorter than most of the high-quality articles upon which I have worked — the reason for this, however, is clear from the content of the article itself. What is important is the quality of the sources used, and they are of high quality. The use of a citation template, although not required, is much appreciated.

With respect to its comprehensiveness, I read it against the treatment in a source not used for the article, W. K. C. Guthrie's multi-volume history of Greek Philosophy, in which poor Leucippus receives a meager four pages. Nothing contained in them has been omitted in this article.

For these reasons, I fully support the promotion of this article.

I would also like to add that I am happy to see how an already good article has improved as a result of this review. I don't in general love the GA/FAC processes, but this is an instance of them benefiting Wikipedia. For all of their hard work my thanks to Thebiguglyalien, especially, and also to everyone else who took the time to contribute with their comments and reviews.

Cheers,

talk) 18:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by Dudley

  • "Leucippus's atoms come in infinitely many forms and exist in constant motion. This creates a deterministic world". This is a non-sequitur.
    • Reworded.
  • "Epicurus has been described as a student of Leucippus, but Epicurus has also been recorded denying the existence of Leucippus." This is an odd sentence on two counts. As Epicurus lived 100 years later he can only have been a follower of Leucippus, not a student. Also, if he really denied Leucippus' existence, that would surely be decisive as he would have known. Maybe "said to have" instead of "recorded".
    • Changed.
  • You say that he held that all things are made of microscopic particles and that they came in infinitely many sizes. These statements contradict each other.
    • Not necessarily. Infinite doesn't always mean all-encompassing.
  • "while Leucippus is credited with the philosophy's creation, Democritus is understood to have applied it to natural phenomena on a larger scale". I am not clear what a larger scale means in this context.
    • Reworded.
  • I do not think it is correct to describe Constantine Vamvacas as a biographer. A quick check suggests that he wrote about the thought rather than the lives of philosophers.
    • Replaced with writer. I could not find another more specific descriptor.
  • "that Leucippus disagreed. He wrote that Leucippus". This is grammatically confusing.
    • Reworded.
  • Vamvacas and Taylor were both born in the 1930s. I do not think it is correct to describe them as 21st century even if you are citing 21C works in this particular case.
    • Fixed.
  • I suggest linking epistemological.
    • Done.
  • "Ancient biographers". As above, I do not think it is correct to describe someone discussing philosophical beliefs as a biographer.
    • Fixed.
  • "Aetius also wrote a history of Leucippus". history is an odd word for a person. Do you mean a study of his thought?
    • Changed to "wrote about"
  • "since the earliest records". The earliest records date to long before Leucippus.
    • Clarified
  • "Such was the problem's enormity". "enormity" is an odd word here. I am not sure what is better but maybe "The dispute was considered so difficult to resolve".
    • Reworded.

Dudley Miles (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles, I've replied to everything above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Leucippus/archive1&oldid=1214105220"