Template talk:Did you know/moral reasoning

Moral reasoning

... did you know that moral reasoning is culturally defined, and thus is difficult to apply; yet human relationships define our existence and thus defy cultural boundaries.

5x expanded by Keith Siebel (talk). Self nom at 21:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Length	Newness	Cited hook	Interest	Sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism/paraphrase
✔	✔	✘	✘	✘		✔

A new hook that needs to be suggested. Hooks that are mere definitions (e.g., "Did you know that X is a Y?") are generally not interesting. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not eligible as "newest content." Expansion happened July 20, not July 29. The article also has other issues, so I recommend against a major Swahili exception. Sharktopus ^talk 14:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- Technically this was nominated July 24, within 5 days of expansion; it looks like July 29 because the nomination was malformed and I had to fix the template for the nominator. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So a new hook then please! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 02:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? ALT1: ... that the German philosopher Immanuel Kant believed moral reasoning should be based on universal laws of morality?

Some parts are still uncited, and read like OR. For example, the last paragraph has "When it came to moral decisions both men and women would be faced with they often chose the same solution as being the moral choice. This shows that gender division in terms of morality does not actually exist. Reasoning between genders is the same in moral decisions." Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily striking my delete vote as per Rjanag, but as of August 11 I still see an article that reads like OR, with not one improvement since July 29. I have notified author on talk page, as have others. Sharktopus ^talk 03:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was expanded for a course, which has now ended. The nominator may not be looking any more. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now rewritten the article extensively. A previous copyedit had missed many of the problems. As expanded, this is a poorly structured and inadequate overview with mostly poor sources and showing poor understanding in places. NPOV doesn't really come into it because it's too close to the sources. There was close rewording where summary should have been used, but no plagiarism or copyvio that I can see; too many refs rather than too few. In short, it's freshman-level class work that needed advice and guidance from the instructor. The student had trouble with the citation templates and as intuited by Sharktopus has added examples as a means of clarification as one would in an essay. There is one bit of OR, which I commented out. I don't think it's ready for prime time, but if an expert can whip it into shape and if it then still meets the length requirement, may I suggest:

ALT2 ... that moral reasoning does not differ substantially with gender?
ALT3 ... that according to psychologist Jonathan Haidt, moral reasoning is secondary to emotion-based intuition? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the regulars are experts in psychology... article still doesn't seem ready for prime time. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one is a difficult call as IMO the article is quite well written and informative; however, about half the article is sourced to about.com and somebody's personal website which fail WP:V, so I am reluctantly declining it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]