Talk:European Journal of Philosophy

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals 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.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Philosophy: Literature / 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:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Contemporary philosophy

Notable Articles[edit]

I created the notable articles section, and noticed a bit ago that it'd been tagged as original research. Just FYI - which I've clarified in the text - the three articles are listed as among its 'Top Articles' http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-0378. I didn't list all five because (a) they weren't ranked, (b) I don't know enough about the subject-material of the other two to put them up, and (c) five seemed like overkill. If anyone else can address (b) and thinks (c) is mistaken, I'd be glad for the other two to be added to the list. Uhhhhhno (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three seems like a good choice, that's about what we do for other journals, too. I've done some reformatting and removed the summaries of the articles, as they are not directly pertinent here and also could be construed as being OR. --Randykitty (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - I hadn't realized it, but you're right; while I was just trying to be helpful, technically my summaries were OR as they weren't direct quotes. Will keep that in mind in the future. Uhhhhhno (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]