You might want to try editing for style rather than references; the deleted text doesn’t seem encyclopedic in tone, and doesn’t mesh well stylistically with the rest of the article.
Specific things that stand out:
His highly popular story.
Wikipedia pages generally don’t describe works as popular without reference. If a work is a
bestseller or major cultural phenomenon, the page will make notes that effect, but you should try to avoid sounding like a fan plugging the story.
isn’t primarily interested in teaching readers the “what” of science
The story isn’t interested in anything. You can describe the intentions Eliezer in writing it, but writing about what the story is interested in or intends sounds inappropriate.
even though it is liberally sprinkled with interesting facts about genetics, game theory, quantum mechanics, and psychology, among other things.
Sounds like what wikipedia would categorize as weasel words. “Liberally sprinkled with” is vague, and “interesting” is too subjective. Stylistically, you should also try to avoid using the passive voice (my parents both have degrees in writing and I hated it when they used to tell me that, but I have to admit that for most cases they were right.)
Instead, as the title suggests, it’s about the “how” of science, conceived of not in the narrow sense of research in a laboratory, but in the broader sense of the process of figuring out how anything in the world works.
It’s not obvious that the title suggests this, and “it’s” would probably be better as “Methods of Rationality is.”
has been favorably reviewed by
Passive voice again.
The text does seem to be relevant and adequately cited for the content that isn’t subjective, so those are the things I’d focus on.
Passive voice is unfairly vilified. I don’t like it when it’s obviously serving to avoid citing the agent of an action, but consider that “Z has been Yed by X” or “X has Yed Z” give the same information. If you look at the best writing, you’ll find some passive constructions.
Mostly, people can’t reliably identify passives—see especially these amusing (not unusual) “passive voice” corrections, although in your case you accurately identify it (except maybe you could call “X [is] sprinkled with Y” an adjective complement instead of a passive version of [somebody] sprinkles Y on X).
I agree with the meat of your complaint. I often see poor quality writing on Wikipedia, and it’s fine that people want to spend time cleaning it.
I agree that passive voice has valid uses (my parents’ admonitions didn’t bother me just because I didn’t want to be corrected,) but if you try to write stuff that scans well, I don’t think you’ll often err too far on the side of not using it.
Instead, as the title suggests, it’s about the “how” of science, conceived of not in the narrow sense of research in a laboratory, but in the broader sense of the process of figuring out how anything in the world works.
that makes me feel almost like I’m reading a pamphlet that’s trying to sell me something.
Though, IIRC David_Gerard is involved with wikipedia, and can probably tell you more about why that might be edited.
You might want to try editing for style rather than references; the deleted text doesn’t seem encyclopedic in tone, and doesn’t mesh well stylistically with the rest of the article.
Specific things that stand out:
Wikipedia pages generally don’t describe works as popular without reference. If a work is a bestseller or major cultural phenomenon, the page will make notes that effect, but you should try to avoid sounding like a fan plugging the story.
The story isn’t interested in anything. You can describe the intentions Eliezer in writing it, but writing about what the story is interested in or intends sounds inappropriate.
Sounds like what wikipedia would categorize as weasel words. “Liberally sprinkled with” is vague, and “interesting” is too subjective. Stylistically, you should also try to avoid using the passive voice (my parents both have degrees in writing and I hated it when they used to tell me that, but I have to admit that for most cases they were right.)
It’s not obvious that the title suggests this, and “it’s” would probably be better as “Methods of Rationality is.”
Passive voice again.
The text does seem to be relevant and adequately cited for the content that isn’t subjective, so those are the things I’d focus on.
Passive voice is unfairly vilified. I don’t like it when it’s obviously serving to avoid citing the agent of an action, but consider that “Z has been Yed by X” or “X has Yed Z” give the same information. If you look at the best writing, you’ll find some passive constructions.
Mostly, people can’t reliably identify passives—see especially these amusing (not unusual) “passive voice” corrections, although in your case you accurately identify it (except maybe you could call “X [is] sprinkled with Y” an adjective complement instead of a passive version of [somebody] sprinkles Y on X).
I agree with the meat of your complaint. I often see poor quality writing on Wikipedia, and it’s fine that people want to spend time cleaning it.
I agree that passive voice has valid uses (my parents’ admonitions didn’t bother me just because I didn’t want to be corrected,) but if you try to write stuff that scans well, I don’t think you’ll often err too far on the side of not using it.
I agree with that assessment, that its stuff like
that makes me feel almost like I’m reading a pamphlet that’s trying to sell me something.
Though, IIRC David_Gerard is involved with wikipedia, and can probably tell you more about why that might be edited.