Talk:Soul/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Brent Silby (talk · contribs) 10:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Mr. Squidroot (talk · contribs) 11:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Lead provides good summary of body. Sections of laid out sensibly

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References section exists

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Some statements currently missing citations after verification failures encountered during review

   C. It contains no original research:

   Verification failures. Needs more thorough review to ensure no original research remains

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No plagiarism seen from any of the cited sources

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Wide variety of views on the soul are addressed

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Stays on the topic of the Soul

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Are viewpoints represented fairly, no assertions of viewpoints in wikivoice

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No edit warring. Normal, constructive edits to the article ongoing

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All free images

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

   All captions have been made relevant to the topic

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

As mentioned, this is my first GA review so I will be taking extra time throughout the review to read and re-read the criteria to ensure I am not missing anything. Apologize in advance for any delays because of this. On first pass, this article does not immediately fail against WP:GAFAIL so I will begin the full review now. Mr. Squidroot (talk)

In the top section of Religious views, the Columbia Encyclopedia is cited for seemingly the second half of the paragraph. However, it supports almost nothing of those sentences. Most notably, it does not provide a definition of animism which is the immediately preceding sentence of the citation. It seems like these statements are true and are supported by citations further in the article(will need to check); we just need to put those citations at the correct locations in that top section. Mr. Squidroot (talk)

• Y No worries. I have completely removed that paragraph, since it only provided trivia, as opposed to a general overview, that would fit that section of the article

There is a similar issue with the first paragraph of the Christianity section. The BBC article is insufficient to support the entire paragraph. In fact, that article says very little about the soul itself and is more about soteriology. I also believe there is a factual error where it says "This is known as Christian conditionalism"; it should be "Christian mortalism" or "soul sleep". Mr. Squidroot (talk)

• Y Rewritten Christianity section completely and used a different citation.

Images look good and are relevant to the article, but some of the captions need some work. Some are good but the captions for Helena Blavatsky, Plato and Aristotle, Avicenna, Thomas Aquinas, and Duncan Macdougal should be written in such a way that they explain the relevance to the article. Specifically, the captions should answer the question, what does this image have to do with the soul? Mr. Squidroot (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Improved all the captions that you have mentioned to make them more suitable.

The current version of the article has nothing about animism outside of the lead. I think at least a paragraph on animism is due here since animism is a major religious view in the ancient world and has a unique understanding of the Soul. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Added a whole paragraph about animism.

Currently the Thomas Aquinas section exclusively uses primary sources. Ideally, we would use secondary sources here which there should be plenty of. The primary sources can be kept, but the secondary sources are needed for when we are summarizing or commenting on Thomas's views and not just quoting them. Also, English sources should be preferred on English Wikipedia and there are plenty of reliable English translations of Thomas's work. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Added English translations to each citation that was in Latin.

When we are talking about long sources, books specifically, it is hard to verify statements when page numbers are not given. There is no exact guidance given in the criteria, but I would say that anything more than 100 pages should have a page number. If you can point to a particular chapter, that would be acceptable too. In most cases, it will be easier to replace the source with a shorter, more accessible one, but be careful about removing them entirely like you did for the Origin of the Soul section. Now that section has clear sourcing issues (perhaps it did the whole time but that would be determined by getting the book and reading the whole thing) Mr. Squidroot (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Added pages to the "Origin of Soul" section.

Discussed with Brent Silby on my talk page but repeating here for visibility and record-keeping. During my spot-check of the article I did find some issues with statements failing validation. Some of those are recorded here and some I highlighted or addressed in the article itself. Although most of the issues I found have been addressed, I think the fact that they were encountered means a more thorough review of the sources is called for. So as to not fail this review, Brent and I are going to spend another week or so taking a closer look at the sources so that we can both have a higher degree of confidence in the content of the article. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in the sections below is optional.

Per MOS:NOTES, citations need to be consistent across the article. It seems like most citations use citations templates but there are some that do not. The Robinson Howard citation from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy jumped out at me as one. That should be made consistent. I'll take a closer look this evening for any more.

Additionally, some citation templates have line breaks in them and some do not. That doesn't matter for GA since it is not visible to the reader but it might be a good idea to make that consistent as well. Mr. Squidroot (talk)

My mistake here; citation consistency is specifically excluded under WP:GANOT. MOS:NOTES is found under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout which is called out so seems like a bit of a contradiction to me. Regardless, I apologize for my error here. Mr. Squidroot (talk)

• Y I have fixed the citation consistency issue with Robinson Howard citation, just for the completeness sake.

Moving this section down here to suggestions but also just to add that there are other instances of citation inconsistency. Not something that needs to be looked at now, but it is required for WP:Featured article criteria if you are ever looking to bring the article to that level. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although citation overkill is not a problem for GA, it would be beneficial to the article to not have so many citations. In one case, 5 citations on only half a sentence. Looks like they are all good sources so maybe there is opportunity to expand that section. Alternatively, move some not needed for citations to further reading. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Removed some of the citations to avoid overlink.

We have an entire article on Ancient Egyptian conception of the soul but only a single sentence in this article. Currently, the Ancient Near East section is entirely sourced by a single New York Times Article. I am sure this could be expanded, though I do feel what we have is sufficient to meet the GA criteria of "addressing the main aspects" Mr. Squidroot (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Added an entire paragraph about Ancient Egyption religion and its concept of soul.

I was fine with the section about the stele if you want to add that back in. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I prefer the version without the stele, since it is more focused. Brent Silby (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brent Silby I am concerned with one of the sources that is cited in that new paragraph. I haven't been able to find Ancient Egyptian Concept of the Soul anywhere (I checked both legitimate and less legitimate channels). That's not in itself a problem. What I'm concerned about is that this book, at least according to the books.google.com page, says it primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online. If you took this source from the other article, I'm concerned that we had a WP:CIRC issue that is now being spread to this article. If you do have access to this source, and can verify yourself that at least that particular section of the book is reliable, then feel free to remove the tag. Otherwise, we should try to find another source. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Squidroot I do have a question, do we really need the section about ancient Egyptian religion? All the other religions mentioned in the list have a large modern following, whereas ancient Egyptian religion is effectively dead. I am just worried that including this entire section might be an instance of selectively going into too much detail (and I say selectively, because there are other minor ancient religions that had concepts similar to the soul, but we clearly don't have enough space to discuss all of them). Brent Silby (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see that argument. It's especially true now that you have removed some of the very minor viewpoints. As I said before, going in to any detail on Ancient Egypt is not needed for "addressing the main aspects" for the purpose of GA. Feel free to remove the section. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y Removed that section entirely.

You rewrote the Christianity top section but I think you need to look at the tone used there. The use of rhetorical questions is not encyclopedic. Although MOS:QUESTION is not part of the Good article criteria, I do strongly suggest you look in to rewording Mr. Squidroot (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Reworded that section.

If I may add my two cents, I think the aricle fails on the criteria "Broad in its coverage". I think the Islam section needs to be expanded on. Now, it mostly focuses (uncritically) on scriptural references. It also lacks to explain how these references where uderstood. At least the debate between Muslim philosophical tradition (falsafa) and literalists needs to be adressed, including the Hellenistic influence on that matter. You may also have a look at this article for additional information: Dichotomy of soul and spirit in Islamic philosophy. Furthermore, at least a few authors should be named and elaborated upon to give due weight compared to the Christian section. Examples are: [Ibn Sina], [Suhrawardi], [Mulla Sadra], and [Ibn Arabi].

Next, I would also argue that the Buddhism section is too simplified. I actually wanted to read myself more into Buddhist concepts of Self (or the lack whereof) in a few weeks in depth, but from what I know, Buddhism is not monolithic on that matter and differences/similarities between Mahayana and Theravada needs to be adressed. Historical context needs to be added as well, such as the discussions between early Buddhists and Brahmins. The Sarvastivadins are also said to ahve believed in a soul (yet distinct from the five aggregates). It also needs to be pointed out on an arguement-base why Buddhists reject a permanet self. For example, Nagasena's discussion with King Melinda.

I know this is still much work and much has been done already. I do not want to denigrate the work @Brent Silby put into this, but the article has been in a pretty bad state. It is fine now, but still not good. I am sure, if it gets more work, estimated about a month, I am confident it will pass a GA. But now, I see it rather as a B-Rank article. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are valid points, but I don't think that I would need a whole month to address all of them (I am a quick editor). The main thing, though, is that I really don't want this review to be failed (I'd much rather have it on hold), because the process of starting the review from the scratch is extremely long and tedious. This is why I am going to be implementing your suggestions immediately. Brent Silby (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @VenusFeuerFalle. I appreciate this feedback. As it is my first time doing this, I'm not yet calibrated on what should be considered "good enough". I'll defer to the more experienced editor here on what is sufficiently broad in scope and I'll respect @Brent Silby's request that I have this review on hold until we meet that goal. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If the editor is confident that the issues can be solved within one or two weeks, it is more efficient to allow more time. But the issues need to be adressed. GA is a quality garantee afterall and we hold responsibility when engaging in GA reviews and proposals. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Squidroot @VenusFeuerFalle, below I will systematize requests by @VenusFeuerFalle and my progress on them:

Islam:

1) Falsafa vs literalists debate - implemented something very similar

2) Dichotomy of soul/spirit - implemented something very similar

3) Adding some Islamic authors (due to imbalance with Christianity section) - implemented

Buddhism:

1) Differences between denominations (Mahayana/Theravada) - appear to be unnecessary, since we aren't going into denominational differences for other religions.

2) Historical context - appear to be unnecessary, since we aren't really providing historical context for other religions.

3) Reason for rejecting the doctrine of soul - implemented. Brent Silby (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For Buddhism, I would at least add something about the debate between Buddhism and the Brahmins, as it is crucial to understand what exactly Buddhism is rejecting here. Otherwise, it will falsely project a Western idea of "no-Self" to Buddhism. I have not seen that denominations were removed, so I think it is fine to drop Theravada versus Mahayana, but I would recommand to add some examples, such as Nagasena and Vasubandhu for different views respectively. Even if only by a quick reference to their ideas of rejecting a self, and also point at the possibility of a self "beyond the five aggregates". Here are some examples:

Mrs. Rhys Davids' reluctance to accept 'self' as a translation for atta springs from the 'debasement', which according to her the term 'self' has undergone in the English language. In Mrs. Rhys Davids' words one can detect an implicit contention, made explicit by her in other parts of her writings, that the original atta of Buddhism coincided with atman of the Updanisads. Early Buddhism accepts the reality of the 'individual' self as a matter of fact. Early Buddhism speaks of the individual self in a way similar to that of Sankhya and Yoga, Jainism, etc. In all these systems the individual self was held in great esteem when considered the agent and recipient of salvation. This self may be something metempirical, but not something 'divine' or exhibiting a universal cosmis character. (Self and Non-self in Early Buddhism von Joaquín Pérez Remón p. 9)

I would also recommand to have a look at Nguyen Quy Hoang's "The Doctrine of Not-self (anattā) in Early Buddhism" as an overview (although I recommand to drop the issue of free-will, as this translation is disputed in general academic Buddhism discourse) and G. A. Somaratne's Not-Self. Additionally, to counterbalance and adding to the comparative philosophical discussions about the self, I also recommand to include parts of James Giles' The No-Self Theory: Hume, Buddhism, and Personal Identity, which compares Nagasena's No-Self with David Hume's Bundle Theory (which is also often done in academic discourse). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]