Wikipedia:Peer review/Value theory/archive1

Value theory

I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I would be interested to learn what changes are required to fulfill the featured article criteria, but I'm also open to more casual improvement ideas.

Thanks, Phlsph7 (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Review by Noleander

I can do this review. Noleander (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Lead ...usually understood as a degree that covers... For "degree" consider "metric" or "measure". Not saying "degree" is bad, the other words seem a bit more natural to me, but I come from the engineering world.

  I think your suggestions could also work, but they sound to me more specific than they should be for this context. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Term "classification" - This is an important concept in the article:

1. Value theorists distinguish between intrinsic and instrumental value. ... Some classifications focus on the type of benefit,...
2. and Value theorists distinguish various types or categories of values. The different classifications overlap an... c
3. and Other classifications of values have been proposed without a widely accepted main classification....

The first usage of classification (italics above) is confusing because the notion has not been introduced. The 2nd usage (bold above) is a great introduction to the term/concept. Consider moving (or replicating) the 2nd (bold) to before the 1st (italic).

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Lead: Wording The roots of value theory lie in the ancient period as .. "ancient period" reads like a term of art; for a general-purpose encyclopedia (especially in the Lead), consider "ancient history" or "antiquity" or similar.

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Definition: Wording: As the branch of philosophy examining which .. my ears want to hear As the branch of philosophy that examines which ... but that may just be my west coast US dialect.

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Value: Clarify "evaluative" and "evaluative terms" Value is the worth, usefulness, or merit of something.... Many evaluative terms are employed... Evaluative terms are sometimes distinguished from ... The first 2 paragraphs of the Value section may be hard for some readers to digest. The Definition section above it defines "value theory"; okay ... then the reader comes to the "Value" section which defines "value". Alright, those are two different things. The subsections under "Value" section are describing various kinds or categories or flavors of values, okay. But there is something missing: the 2 paragraphs that start the Value section focus on "evaluative terms".

• Maybe add a few words explaining/defining "evaluative terms" before its firs usage
• How do the following subsection terms ("Intrinsic", "instrumental", "Absolute", "relative" ) relate to "evaluative terms", if at all? Are those four words evaluative terms?
• When assessing a value, is there a distinction between "degree" assessments (mearsurements) which can vary continuously in value (good/bad... many degrees between); vs binary (only 2 choices) assessments: intrinsic/insturmental; abs/relative?

Each individual sentence reads fine; I'm just a bit lost about the focus/point/essence of the Value section, particularly its first 2 paragraphs.

Those are interesting ideas. I restructured the section to make the contrast between evaluative terms and types of values more explicit. I also rewrote the introduction to evaluative terms to make the paragraph more accessible.

The section "Evaluative terms" is about the language used to talk about values while the section "Types" is about the values themselves. The section "Types" uses evaluatives terms to discuss its topic (for example, the term "intrinsic value" is a thin evaluative term), but I fear this would become too meta to explain. As I understand it, the degrees are usually degrees within a specific type (e.g. high vs low intrinsic value, high vs low extrinsic value), but this can be more complicated because comparisons may not always be possible. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Continuing the above thought on "Value" section: speaking naively: Would it help to create a subsection (within Value) to hold the first 2 paragraphs of Value section? maybe title it "Evaulative terms" or "definition of value"?

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Continuing the above thought on "Value" section: the 3rd paragraph of "Value" Value theorists distinguish various types or categories of values. ... is a great intro to the following 3 subsections, but is kinda hidden. Would the reader benefit if a new top-level "Categories of value" section was created to hold (a) that Value theorists distinguish various types or categories .. sentence _and_ (b) the following three subsections?

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Citation format: Schwartz & Cieciuch 2016, pp. 109–113. This cite has a period at the end (from the "sfn" template); I think you meant to use the "harvnb" template.

  Fixed. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Section "Schools of Thought" ... all looks good; cannot find any issues.

• Section "Methods": [optional] May want to move the " Schwartz theory of basic human values" diagram upward one paragraph so it does not spill over past the bottom of the section into the following section. But the problem depends a lot on the platform/device the reader is using to view the article.

  Moved. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Illustrations: needs more, if available. In section "Methods" is illustration [[File:Proposed circular motivational continuum of 19 values with sources that underlie their order.png]] This diagram is an oasis in a sea of headshots of old men. I realize there is a paucity of illustrations for this kind of theoretical topic, but the social science applications of Value Theory must have some diagrams/illustrations/figures, no? Or all they mostly copyrighted? Anyway, if you can find any more diagrams ... anything... it would invite more casual readers into the article.

  I agree, this is a challenge for many abstract topics. The article currently has 8 images, which is not too bad, but there is room for improvement. There would be many diagrams from economics, but the ones I'm aware of are not directly related to the theories discussed here. I'll keep my eyes open for more images. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• "Notes" section: all footnotes look superb: full sentences; citations. No issues.

• Italics for new terms: This view is sometimes called radical nihilism. and The term timology is... and They are known as thin evaluative concepts... The italics are okay, per MOS:WORDSASWORDS, but usage in the article seems a bit uneven. E.g. on the concept of relational value to understand is not describing the italicized term as a term. This is not a big deal, and I doubt anyone at FA would notice it. I'm just trying to figure out the algorithm used in the article: ? italics are used when introducing a new term as a term, except when the term is a blue link to a WP article? Again, not a big deal, it just caught my attention.

  I removed the italics for "relational value". I'm not an expert here either, but my understanding is that if the text refers to words or what something is called, italics is used. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Okay, that is all I can find. Overall the article is very polished, as you are already aware, I'm sure. Cites & sources look clean & consistent. Prose, wording, flow are fine. About the only major task I can see is making it more inviting for lay readers of a general-purpose encyclopedia, if possible:

1. When any new/complex term or idea is introduced: explain it in plain terms
2. Distinguish topics/discussions more clearly, by separating them with more emphasis (subsection?) and ensure each has an xlnt introductory sentence, so reader knows when they are transitioning from one to another. (Already done for most sections)
3. More figures/diagrams, if available.

Otherwise, great article!

• Done. Noleander (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for all the helpful comments! Phlsph7 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)