Talk:Boiling frog/GA1

GA Review

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

Will add comments as I go along. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• "The boiling frog story has been used as a way of explaining the Sorites paradox — the paradox of the heap; when grains of sand are individually removed from a heap, at which point is it no longer a heap?" - Is it possible to explain this in a non-question manner?
• Why is metaphor linked all the way at the bottom, instead of on its first mention?
• "The boiling frog story is generally told in a figurative context, with the upshot being that people should make themselves aware of gradual change lest they suffer a catastrophic outcome." - "Catastrophic outcome" is very strong wording, considering that it's not used in the sources. Would "undesirable consequences" be better?
• Maybe it's just me, but the latter half of the Cultural usage section reads a bit like a list of trivia.

I'm putting the article on-hold for now. Let me know once you've addressed these concerns, and I'll revisit the article. Good work so far. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments and the things you fixed in the article. I'll adress your points one by one.

• I reworded the description of sorites paradox for better tone and added philosophy for context.
• "metaphor" is now linked at the first instance in each section, also reworded to use the word "metaphor" earlier in the cultural usage section.
• Changed wording to "eventual undesirable consequences".
• The most egregiously trivial example was the railtrack mention, after removing that I think the section looks much better. The real value of that example was the expression "boiling frog syndrome", so I moved that up and fleshed out the more general usage instead, as it appears to be rather widespread.[1][2] I also fleshed out the other examples a little to hopefully make them less trivial. Just let me know if that's not enough or if you have more specific notes on that section and I'll be happy to address it further. Siawase (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Much better, thanks. Looks good enough to pass, I think. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, appreciate it! Siawase (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)