# Talk:Working from Within: The Nature and Development of Quine's Naturalism

This review is transcluded from Talk:Working from Within: The Nature and Development of Quine's Naturalism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Boca Jóvenes (talk · contribs) 14:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Looks like one that will need a lot of thought so I'll aim for the weekend to read it thoroughly. BoJó | talk UTC 14:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I've read the article twice and made a few minor tweaks. Looking at the GA criteria, it's very close to a pass with just one issue. Point 1b of the criteria includes MOS:LAYOUT and the problem is that the paragraphs are too long to be read comfortably, so I think they should be broken up a bit and the addition of sub-headings would help. I've already split the lead in this way per MOS:LEAD. 
My suggestions would be:

split the background section into two sub-sections entitled "Works on Quine" and "Quine's philosophy".
paragraph breaks at "The book was also unique", "Instead, Quine characterised philosophy", and "Another important aspect".
split Part I into "Chapter 2", "Chapter 3" and "Chapter 4"
split Part II into "Chapter 5", "Chapter 6" and "Chapter 7"
in Part I, paragraph breaks at "Verhaegh claims", "According to Verhaegh", and "Overall, Verhaegh views" (Chapter 4 is fine as a single paragraph).
in Part II, paragraph breaks at "Furthermore, he struggled with", "However, according to Verhaegh", and "Verhaegh details how".
split Reception into sub-sections by reviewer: Tuboly, Sinclair, Khani, Ebbs, Severo, and "Others" (i.e., Maco, Arreman and Morris).
in Reception, paragraph breaks at "However, Ebbs proposes" and for each of the reviewers in "Others".
This will considerably help readability given that it is a difficult subject to both present and understand.
As far as the other criteria go, the article is well written apart from the paragraphing and I've no problems with the sources or citations. I think the breadth of coverage is good and completely within scope. No problems with POV or stability and the two images are appropriate. It's a very interesting subject that provides food for thought. As it happens, I completely agree with Quine about naturalism so I could read the article sympathetically. If you can just resolve the layout issue, it will then pass the review.
I'll place the review on hold but I don't do deadlines so no worries if you can't attend to it in the near future. All the best. BoJó | talk UTC 06:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this review Boca Jóvenes!
I have made all the changes you suggested (with some minor differences), except for the reception section. I'm sympathetic to splitting up the paragraphs for readability but I think splitting it into subsections might be a bit much, especially down to a subsection for each author. I will think more about that section and come back to it later, hopefully I will think up a solution that is acceptable. Alduin2000 (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I have organised the section by topic rather than reviewer, with subsections for "Quality of historical scholarship", "Interpretations of Quine", and "Relevance to contemporary philosophy". Hopefully this solves the problem of readability/overlong paragraphs. Alduin2000 (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello again, Alduin2000. Thank you for responding so promptly. The amendments are fine and I have no hesitation now in promoting this to GA because it is not just a good article but a very good one. Well done and all the best. BoJó | talk UTC 14:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Boca Jóvenes and thanks for reviewing the article.  Alduin2000 (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)