Clare Palmer has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 26, 2017. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Clare Palmer appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 September 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the philosopher Clare Palmer argues that humans are usually permitted to aid wild animals in need, and are sometimes required to? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Clare Palmer.

This article was created as a part of the 2016 Women in Philosophy Drive and/or the Kevin Gorman Memorial Edit-a-thon, projects organised under the auspices of WikiProject Women in Red to continue the good work of Kevin Gorman, who died in July 2016.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Philosophy: Philosophers / Ethics / Contemporary Low‑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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Ethics Contemporary philosophy Animal rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment Low‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Theology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women writers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 21:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	A couple of minor issues noted.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues noted.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Fine.
	2b. 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).	Fine.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Fine.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	That's got to be the cleanest report I've seen from Earwig's tool (at 4.8%)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Inasmuch as it seems to be very much about her as a philosopher rather than a person. We don't even have a birthdate, let alone any familial or social life information. While not required, such would clearly improve the article. I have no sources, primary or otherwise, which go into this kind of thing. I might be able to find a birthdate, but I'd be nervous about including it based on WP:DOB. I agree that this gives the article an air of incompleteness, and I probably wouldn't pursue FAC for that reason, but I'd be inclined to say that it meets the slightly laxer GA requirements. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Fine.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	One potential tweak noted below.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars noted.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No "photo needed" on the talk page, should be one there. Kind of odd to have pictures of her school and a peer critic, but none of the article subject herself. Granted. I should be able to get a photo in the coming months. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	Passing per improvements.

• Did she get her D.Phil. in the same year as her bachelor's? That's not clear.
  • A DPhil is a kind of doctorate; it is the DPhil which is referred to a few lines down as having been completed in 1993. Would you like me to clarify this? Josh Milburn (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, please. Until you explained it, I wasn't entirely sure that was the same degree. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've tweaked slightly. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• There seems to be almost too much emphasis on what she authored individually. If it's listed without a co-author, does the article additionally need to state that she solely authored it?
  • I'm afraid I am not sure that I understand this question; could you rephrase? The focus is on her two monographs; Environmental Ethics is more of a textbook, and Companion Animal Ethics is not un-textbook-like, and was coauthored with several others (not just Sandoe and Corr; others contributed to individual chapters). Additionally, it has yet to receive any extensive coverage in third-party sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In 1997, she published her first[1] sole-authored book" How does 'sole authored' change things or enhance communication? In the way the article is currently organized, it appears that this is the first book she's either authored or co-authored (vs. edited), and so it seems redundant to me. A couple sentences later, we have "That same year, she published the sole-authored Environmental Ethics and Process Thinking" Again, I have yet to run across her co-authoring a book, so I'm not sure the inline sole-authored helps understanding there, either. Would it hurt anything to lose either or both? I think it would improve readability a tad. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dropped! Josh Milburn (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "She acknowledges that humans have a prima facie duty not to harm any animal." I don't think 'acknowledges' is NPOV in this context--at least not without additional explanation of which group holds this view as a default. Perhaps 'She postulates' or 'Beginning from the assumption that...' or something like that.
  • Yes, a fair comment. I've adjusted this. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, that works fine. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, pretty good prose, although it's really tough to discuss complex concepts using straightforward writing. Jclemens (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere thanks for the review. I will aim to find time to respond to this in the coming days. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that talking about these ideas in summary form can be difficult; it can be tricky for me to pitch this material. If there are particular passages you found difficult, do feel free to identify them, and I will do my best to smooth them out. Thanks again for taking up the review. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn thanks for the tweaks and the follow-up questions. My replies inline above. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: Thanks, again, for taking the time to review this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]