Talk:Value theory

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2024/June; 2024/August;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Value theory is currently a Philosophy and religion good article nominee. Nominated by Phlsph7 (talk) at 16:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Short description: Systematic study of values

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Value theory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Philosophy: Metaphysics / Ethics Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics
	Ethics

Proposed merge of Value (social sciences and philosophy) into Value theory

Newer article is three-quarters baked, but really should have searched a bit harder. Remsense ‥ 论 08:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better to merge the content of article Value (social sciences and philosophy) into William Frankena since the article is almost exclusively dedicated to Frankena's view (which seems to be gross violation of WP:BALANCE). If this is done, it would make sense to point the redirect here. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7 thank you for the clear perspective. Do you think this article is well-titled as it stands? Remsense ‥ 论 23:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the right title should be. The main discussion is of primary values and secondary values, so maybe the title could be "Primary and secondary values". However, this main distinction for the organization of the article might be original research. The article suggests at various points that it follows Frankena's list of values in Frankena 1963. However, Frankena's list does not include these distinctions. Some individual theorists may use it, but I'm not aware of a widely-used distinction between "primary and secondary values" in value theory. One of the main distinctions in the academic discourse is between intrinsic and instrumental values, for which we already have an article. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Value theory/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 16:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Acer-the-Protogen (talk · contribs) 20:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, it is not eligible for any sort of quick fail. I noticed that the lead section is quite long, which might put it at risk of failing Criterion 1b. It seems properly cited, however. These are just my opening remarks. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 20:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Acer-the-Protogen and thanks for reviewing this article! You are right that the lead is relatively long (currently 375 words). However, it reflects the length of the article and is still within the boundaries proposed by MOS:LEADLENGTH: The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware. However, the lead does seem like it could be cut shorter, especially since this isn't an FA candidate. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 14:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So far, this is what I've found. It is the first day as of right now, so feel free to chime in (especially since this is my first GA review.)

I got a spot-check on sources 114, 1, 4, and 212. They all seem alright and paraphrased, and Earwig's only concerns were duplicate titles of the website.

I took a few more looks. This is what I've got from Day 2. I'll look closer at the images and criterions 3a and 3b later.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·