Talk:Encyclopedism

Several Article Issues to Work On

The page is currently divided roughly into two sections: "History" and "As a practice." The History section largely summarizes disproportionate aspects of the Encyclopedia article, jumping from Pliny to HG Wells in a sentence, completely omitting the very group referred to by many as the capital-E Encyclopedists of the French Enlightenment. "As a practice" offers no sources and two sections: "Genres" with one genre listed and "Areas" which lists four seemingly at random. I'm not sure what separates genres from areas here or why these were chosen. Sources would be hugely useful of these terms (e.g. "advocacy encyclopedism") in use and would give us something to build upon. Apologies for criticizing and leaving without improving; I'm planning to make time to help out with this article in a few weeks (early summer probably). If you want to coordinate an effort to improve the coverage of this topic so relevant to Wikipedia maybe leave a comment on my talk page? --Rhododendrites (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Several changes

Overview:

• A lot of the content duplicated Encyclopedia and Wikipedia. Removed what was unnecessary as well as the tag.
• More general definition in the lede
• Expanded history, made it more about encyclopedism rather than encyclopedia.
  • history was disproportionately about technology, and in a way taht duplicated encyclopedia. chopped most of it, expanded other parts.
  • still needs a lot of expansion
  • still needs references
• the "genres" and "areas" sections had to go. OR, incomplete, undue, and not representative of the topic
• added section on historical themes to which I've added something on intellectual property/copying and advocacy. more could go here

I didn't have much time tonight, but I do have many sources I plan to add. Hopefully you do, too. --Rhododendrites (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 15:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I am going to have to fail this article as a GAN at this juncture. The following areas particularly concern me, and prevent the article from meeting the necessary GA criteria:

• The lede is excessively long and poorly structured. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• There are many incidents of unreferenced sentences and paragraphs throughout the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Many of the citations are purely to primary sources, potentially non-RS websites, and such like. There has been little or no use of academic studies on encyclopedism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Despite the fact that this article must be failed at this point, I understand that the account which nominated this as a GAN has only been active on Wikipedia for about a month, and thus it may be that the individual behind that account is a 'newbie' to the Wikipedia process. Given this, I hope that the nominator will not be put off by the failure of the nomination at this point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• I hope this review is a joke of some kind. The comments on sourcing don't survive even a glance at the article's reference section. The main source for the article is the book Encyclopaedism from Antiquity to the Renaissance. Yes, this is definitely an "academic study." I am impressed that even though the review was completed in only nine minutes, the reviewer still found time to check my edit history and comment on it. 10W40 (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I have shortened the lede, made other improvements, and resubmitted the article. 10W40 (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Encyclopedism/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 1990'sguy (talk · contribs) 14:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

While I have just started reviewing the article, on first glance, it appears well-sourced and detailed. I am expecting to take about a week to complete the review. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is well done. However, some changes will have to be made before I promote the article.

Links

• This article lacks links to several relevant or notable topics.
  • Please add a link to "Dark Ages" in the third intro paragraph
  • Add a link to Romanization of Greek to "Latinization" in the "Etymology" section
  • I'm not sure which "Andronicus" you are referring to in the "Aristotle" section, but please add a link to him if an article exists. Please do the same for "Dorotheus" and "Zopyrion" in the "Alexandria" sections if articles exist
  • Add a link to "Roman" and "Cicero" and Pro Archia Poeta in the "Rome" section
  • Add a link to Niccolò Leoniceno and Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 in the "Pliny the Elder" section
  • Add a link to "Middle Ages", Orthodoxy, Codex Justinianus, and Ibn al-Nadim in "The Middle Ages" section
  • Add a link to Cao Wei in the China section (I believe this is the correct article for "Wei dynasty")
  • Add a link to "Renaissance", Conrad Gessner, Bibliotheca universalis, and Antonio Possevino in the "Renaissance" section.
  • Add a link to Elizabethan era in the "England" section. Please consider adding other links to relevant people and works in the section as well
  • Add a link to "John Harris" in the "Enlightenment" section if one exists. Also add a link to Ephraim Chambers, Cyclopædia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, "The Encyclopedia" (I could not find a link to it), and Encyclopædia Britannica.
  • Add a wink to Wikipedia in "The 19th and 20th centuries" section

Sources

Several sentences are unsourced. Please add reliable sources to these sentences:

• Hesychius (fifth century) credits Diogenianus as a source, who in turn used Pamphilus. This is the only form in which any of Pamphilus's work may have survived. (in the "Alexandria" section)
• The Arab counterpart to these works was Kitab al-Fehrest by Ibn al-Nadim. (in "The Middle Ages" section)
• Several paragraphs in "The Middle Ages" besides the one above are unsourced. Please add some sources
• The first paragraph in "The Enlightenment" is unsourced
• The entire "The 19th and 20th centuries" section is unsourced

Other

• Please replace all hyphens with en dashes that are placed between two different dates. These include "1426-1427" in the "Cornelius Celsus" section, and several dates in "The Enlightenment" section. Also, please remove the spaces between the en dash and the other code in "c. 25 BC – c. 50 AD" in the Rome section.

If you fix these things I identified, I will promote the article to GA. I will give you up to two weeks to make the fixes, even though I hope such a long time will not be necessary --1990'sguy (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I unintentionally let more than two weeks pass on the GA nomination. The nominator did not make any of the suggested improvements, so I regretfully have to fail the article. If anyone else makes these improvements, please do so, ping me, and renominate the article, and I will likely promote it to GA. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)