# Talk:Philosophical Essays on Freud

Hello, Anthony Appleyard. Regarding this, I have to note that the book's title, "Philosophical essays on Freud", is always spelled with a lower-case "e" for "essay" in the book itself. I am not sure I understand the rationale for the change of title. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Freeknowledgecreator: See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Capital letters. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't care much for what MOS says about this, but I'll accept it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Philosophical Essays on Freud/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 23:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Will review. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Wugapodes. Thank you for the review. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


### Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 
See 1, 3, and 5 below
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
See 7
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary: 
See 6 and {{cn}} tags in article
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
See 2
B. Focused (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
See 4 and 7
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Comments
If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

I added a list of contributors which, like all copyedits, you're free to revert or fix if not an improvement. The reason was that the full list of contributors is useful information for a reference work to have, and it also allows some of the prose lists to be cut down more. In both the lead and the summary section, there's a list of over 10 contributors which is simply too long; readers are unlikely to read the whole list of names they may or may not know, and so these prose lists make the article harder to read. I would suggest narrowing these down to the most important contributors based on who readers are likely to know most about and whose contributions to the volume are considered the best. We can discuss how many to keep, but I would say no more than 5 is a good place to start.
In the summary section, not all of the contributions are summarized: the contributions from Cosin, Freeman, and Freeman, Sachs, and Hart are not mentioned at all.
In the summary section, the paragraphs breaks seem to be arbitrary and I cannot follow the logic of the summary.
In the summary section, some contributions are summarized at relatively long length, others very briefly (and some not at all). What is the logic for this difference in treatment?
The sentence which begins "He described Hopkins's introduction as a "shabby" psychoanalytic apologetic" is rambling and should be made more clear and concise
I believe I've tagged all the places that it applies, but to summarize, direct quotations require an inline citation.
The lead doesn't address the negative reception the book received. The statement that contributions were "of uneven value" makes it seem like there are some contributions which are universally regarded as valuable, but there are a number of reviews which found the entire volume of little value.
For future reference, editors are not listed as authors in citations for chapters which they did not write. For most citation templates, editors are listed using |editor-last1=Smith|editor-first1=John etc.


### Results
On hold for 7 days pending revisions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll review your comments and your edits at the article and get back to you with a detailed response. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Wugapodes, you comment, "In the summary section, the paragraphs breaks seem to be arbitrary and I cannot follow the logic of the summary." The purpose of the paragraph breaks is simply to keep each paragraph to within a manageable length. If you can suggest a better way of paragraphing the material by all means do so. I do not understand what you mean by saying, "I cannot follow the logic of the summary". What, specifically, is your criticism of it? The summary section is intended to give a brief description of the ideas of each of the contributors. If it succeeds in doing so, where is the problem with its "logic"? What alternative "logic" would you suggest? I have not gone into a detailed discussion of each of their contributions because I do not believe that doing so would be justified for encyclopedic purposes. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
By "logic" I mean that usually sentences have some sort of relationship to each other, and that a paragraph represents a set of sentences explaining a common thought or idea. In saying "I cannot follow the logic", I mean that the summary section appears to be a series of disjointed sentences unrelated to what comes before or after it. What information gets included and what does not appears arbitrary, with some contributions getting multiple sentences, some getting none, and many offering little more information than is provided by the essay title. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
That "the summary section appears to be a series of disjointed sentences unrelated to what comes before or after it" reflects the nature of a book. It is an anthology that includes separate articles by different authors, with different views, writing independently of each other. How else would you expect a description of such a work to be written? If you can suggest a better way of describing the contents of Philosophical Essays on Freud, then by all means suggest it, but if you cannot, then your criticism is both unfair and pointless. Since the book is a collection of contributions from different authors with different views there is, in my view, little that can be done to describe its contents expect to note briefly what each author argues. I can improve the summary section by adding brief descriptions for the views of each of the authors, but I don't see any other approach for writing the section than noting briefly what each author argues. Again, it seems that you are asking for something better without offering any clue as to what that might be. If you have no idea of how to even suggest something better, then telling me to produce something better is hardly fair, is it? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
As I said on your talk page, I think your right and that without a particular suggestion my criticism wasn't constructive. My suggestion would be to see how Hopkins in the introduction or any preface talks about these works. In the article, you mention that the works as a collection touch on various themes such as "materialism, intentionality, and theories of the self's structure". Does the introduction say which ones deal with what themes, and can the summaries of each essay be grouped thematically rather than in order of appearance? As an example, from the article it appears that Pear's work is partly in response to Sartre, but the summaries of the two works are separated by discussion of three different essays. My library has a copy of this book, so if you would like me to email you a scan of the introduction let me know and I'd be happy to help with that. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I removed the following statement you added to the "Reception" section, " Philosophical Essays on Freud received mixed reviews. " That statement was misleading and in my judgment not in accord with WP:NPOV. So far as I can tell, after quite careful searching, the reviews the book received were about equally divided between positive, negative, and mixed. While the statement, " Philosophical Essays on Freud received mixed reviews ", is technically correct, it is misleading insofar as it implies that mixed reviews predominated. They did not. If you are going to insist on keeping that statement in the article, then this review simply isn't going to work and you might as well fail the article right now. I am prepared to accept any kind of reasonable criticism of the article, and revise it accordingly, but I am never going to accept the addition of misleading content. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
It would be best if some statement starts that section which summarizes the body of reviews. Partly as a matter of good writing, it helps to give readers signposts which helps readers anticipate the content that is coming up. Partly it is an issue of NPOV because as it is, the paragraph gives undue prominence to the positive reviews by arbitrarily putting them first ahead of the mixed and negative reviews. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
That "It would be best if some statement starts that section which summarizes the body of reviews" is a generality that doesn't address the point that it is not accurate to simply state that Philosophical Essays on Freud received mixed reviews. Your complaint that mentioning positive reviews first is not accord with WP:NPOV is baseless. You might just as well say that mentioning negative reviews last gives them undue prominence by giving them the last word, as it were. While it obviously is important to follow WP:NPOV, you have drawn an unreasonable conclusion from it that it clearly does not support. Rather it was your edits that violated neutrality by giving undue prominence to mixed reviews; the reviews were not primarily mixed. I therefore reject your position completely. As I have said, I will accept all reasonable criticisms of my work, but I won't accept unreasonable or unfair criticisms. Fail the article if you like. I will nominate it again in the hope of getting a fairer review. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Would beginning the section with a statement similar to what you put in the lead be a compromise, so "The book received a mixture of positive, mixed, and negative reviews." Leaving aside the issue of NPOV, it is helpful to give readers signposts, and such a sentence gives readers a quick summary of the main points they will see in the rest of the section. I think it would improve the prose, and it would not be misleading or non-neutral which is your concern about my previous suggestions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
In the "reception" section, you've removed the division between "reviews" and "other evaluations". I could contest that, but I really don't care, so I'll leave your change in place. However, in my judgment, some of the changes you have made to the "Reception" section are unnecessary and even slightly lower its quality, and I'll revert those. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Your addition of a list of contributors could be considered not strictly necessary, but I think that it is, on balance, an improvement, and I will leave it in the article. However, you've redlinked the names of a number of contributors without any evidence that they are notable, per WP:NOTE, and would deserve dedicated articles. I will therefore remove the redlinks. You have included the titles of the contributions in italics. Per MOS:NOITALIC, that appears to be incorrect, and I will change it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I question your addition of "citation needed" tags. Please reconsider your position carefully. To be quite clear about it, all of the material that you have requested citations for is, in fact, cited. In each case, the citation was clearly indicated prior to your addition of the "citation needed" tags, meaning that there should have been no doubt about which citation supported which statement. Your rationale for the addition of the tags is that "direct quotations require an inline citation". Could you please cite a relevant policy? It appears to me that you have requested "inline citations" for material that does already have inline citations, which is unreasonable.
To give an example of the problems your addition of "citation needed" tags has created, consider the case of Francisca Goldsmith's review. The article summarizes this as, "Goldsmith described Hopkins's introduction as "incisive", and the selections chosen by Wollheim and Hopkins as "uniformly well-presented discussions of such topics as Freud's materialism, intentionality, and theories of the self's structure." She wrote that the collection would be "useful to researchers at the graduate and professional levels." You added a "citation needed" tag following "uniformly well-presented discussions of such topics as Freud's materialism, intentionality, and theories of the self's structure". What is it that you expect me to do here? To add an additional citation after that quote? Were I to do so, I would simply be repeating the already existing citation for the entire (very brief) summary of Goldsmith's review, meaning that there would then be two citations to Goldsmith's article instead of one. Again, do you really consider this necessary? I also have to note that your position is not consistent. The summary of Goldsmith in fact includes three direct quotations, yet you added a "citation needed" tag after only one of them. Am I really to be expected to repeat the same identical citation to Goldsmith three times over in the space of a very brief summary of her short review? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Inline citations are required for direct quotations per WP:V All quotations ... must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. It is the 7th sentence of that policy. This is a non-negotiable point. If all three quotes come from the same work, it's sufficient to place a single inline citation at the end of the sentence which supports all three. As I said above, I believe I tagged them all but if you find direct quotations I missed then you can freely assume that I meant to tag that one too per my comment in 6. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I think you have simply misunderstood the policy and that your addition of citation needed tags, while done in good faith, was uncalled for. What WP:V states is, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." As I said, all of the quotations were supported by inline citations before your addition of the citation needed tags. You seem to think that the policy means that each quotation must be followed immediately by a citation. The policy does not say anything like that. It certainly requires that there be a citation supporting each quotation, but it doesn't demand that each quotation must be followed immediately by that citation. I might, of course, do so anyway if it improved the article. Here I doubt it does. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
To quote the policy again, "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." Goldsmith's review is only a single page in length. There is obviously no point to repeating the citation to Goldsmith multiple times when her review is only a single page in length. The policy is encouraging identifying the precise page that a quotation can be found on when a review contains multiple pages. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I have further comments. You state, "In both the lead and the summary section, there's a list of over 10 contributors which is simply too long; readers are unlikely to read the whole list of names they may or may not know, and so these prose lists make the article harder to read. I would suggest narrowing these down to the most important contributors based on who readers are likely to know most about and whose contributions to the volume are considered the best." My first response was to reject your position completely, but after some consideration, I'm willing to partially accept it. I have reduced the number of contributors mentioned in the lead, not on the basis that readers might not know who they are, which is completely irrelevant, or to focus on the contributors whose contributions are considered best, which would be inappropriate, but simply because some of the contributors received less attention from reviewers than others. It does make sense not to focus on the contributors who didn't receive as much attention from reviewers. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
You state that, "In the summary section, not all of the contributions are summarized: the contributions from Cosin, Freeman, and Freeman, Sachs, and Hart are not mentioned at all." I will work on improving the summary section by adding brief descriptions of the contributions from Cosin, Freeman, and Freeman, Sachs, and Hart. Regarding your 5th numbered point, about the rambling sentence, I have broken it up into two separate sentences, which should read better. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
You state that, "The lead doesn't address the negative reception the book received." It is not clear to me why you would focus only on the negative reception - what about the positive and mixed reviews? I have added a statement to the lead ("The book received a mixture of positive, mixed, and negative reviews"), that summarizes the book's reception. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, respectfully, this review is going to be a waste of time for all concerned if you will not address my criticisms of your criticisms of the article. You have listed a series of things I have to do to get the article passed. I have tried to explain why I am not going to do several of those things. Please either reconsider your position or fail the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been travelling and as I mentioned on your talk page wanted to take some time to reflect on what you had said. I want to be clear that my points are not "do x or else", but are meant to be things I want to discuss; My first response was to reject your position completely, but after some consideration, I'm willing to partially accept it. is the exact kind of spirit I hope my most recent comments reflect as well. In that case, my point was "the lists are long and hard to read", and you found a way to improve it which was even better than what I had suggested. That said, to continue with the references point, I've made an edit which perhaps will satisfy both of us; I used {{harvtxt}} to cite the paper as part of the prose. This way the citation for the quote is clear and precise which was my concern, but the article doesn't get bogged down with repeated footnotes to the same paper which was your concern. What are your thoughts? — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll work on improving the article and we'll see where things go. If you don't like direct quotations for some reason I'll try to avoid them. You noted above that, "the contributions from Cosin, Freeman, and Freeman, Sachs, and Hart are not mentioned at all." I have now dealt with this issue. In general, I have fleshed out the descriptions of the various contributions to the book, to provide a more equal treatment of them. You're right that this is an important matter that needed addressing. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
At this stage it would help if you could say what, if anything, still needs to be done for the article to pass. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Listed Sorry we got off to a rough start, but the article looks even better than I would have hoped from just a few days work! My concerns are addressed for the most part so I've listed it as a good article. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Wugapodes. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)