Talk:Averroes/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 20:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect at the beginning can lose the capitalization on "right".

Seems someone already fixed it? I don't find it capitalized in the hatnote. HaEr48 (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the intro, the subjects such as philosophy and astronomy can be linked to.

Done. HaEr48 (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I might add his "unity of the intellect theory" to the intro.

Done. HaEr48 (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We also might need a wikilink for "Neoplatonist"

Done. HaEr48 (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"In the West...", comma after West.

Done. HaEr48 (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but I don't see the initial wikilinking of "Seville".

Done. HaEr48 (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the "Works" section, Averroes seems to have written on myriad topics beyond those mentioned in the section. Perhaps an "Other" subsection would address them?

The lead paragraph of the "Works" section already contains a brief survey of his works, and includes a link to List of works by Averroes. I think these should suffice to describe the breadth of Averroes' works. IMO, an "Others" subsection would probably just boringly list the fields and titles of Averroes' less known works, so it's not that helpful. HaEr48 (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Thoughts" may be too elegiac a title for the subsection; "Beliefs" or "Philosophy, or "Doctrines" would be more encyclopedic.

Split "Thoughts" to "philosophical ideas" and "natural philosophy". HaEr48 (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of the scientific fields Averroes covered, i.e. astronomy, physics, could be encapsulated as subsections within a "Sciences" section.

Called them "natural philosophy", as this is how sources group these fields in the context of Averroes' times. HaEr48 (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article for "material intellect", so perhaps a brief summary is in order.

The source (Adamson p. 189) doesn't really have a definition of it, unfortunately. HaEr48 (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only the BBC source seems to be dead.

Deleted the dead link. HaEr48 (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work with this very crucial article. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@QatarStarsLeague: Thanks for your review. I'm currently traveling with very limited internet. May I ask for about 2 weeks before I address your review? HaEr48 (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's no problem. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by a non-reviewer who had thoughts, both on the first paragraph:

"who wrote about many subjects including" Not positive, but shouldn't a comma follow "subjects"? Also, an MOS thing: are these all of the subjects he wrote on (i.e. an exhaustive list), because if it is exhaustive, a different word from including should be used. Given the length of the list, I would probably assume totality and use a different word even if it is merely probably exhaustive. But the comma is the thing that initially grabbed my attention.

Fixed the comma. Believe it or not, it's still non exhaustive (Averroes is a really prolific and wide-ranging thinker), so I believe "including" is the right word. HaEr48 (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"numerous commentaries on Aristotle for which he was known" I think this is a run-on (comma should go after Aristotle).

Added comma. HaEr48 (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I might see some other similar things, too. Hopefully this article isn't littered with them, not that it would be GA-sinking problem (such problems are easyy to fix). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this article is tagged as using American English, but the spelling of "centre" in the hatnote is British. Which is it? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to use centre. I don't mind American English, but sometimes I miss some words because I'm not natively educated in either variant. HaEr48 (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading above that English isn't your first language. That's perfectly fine, and indeed justifies some of the prose issues (having native speakers make large numbers of trivial grammatical errors raises competence questions; having non-native speakers make those same errors is perfectly normal and acceptable). It's good that you requested a copyedit from the guild, although it looks like they missed some things. Rather than posting them all here, would you like me to just fix them? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727: Yes, if you're willing, please go ahead and fix them, I will really appreciate it! HaEr48 (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And at this point I've made way too many comments in a row, as I'm wont to do late at night when medications have worn off. I'll try to force myself to log off after this. I just had one last thought: in the infobox, under Era, you place him as "medieval philosophy (Islamic Golden Age)". Medieval makes sense, as does Islamic Golden Age, and I would include both terms because they don't perfectly overlap. But I don't see why philsophy was included, given it isn't a time period. Was there a specific meaning that was meant to be communicated by this? Were you intending to wikilink to medieval philosophy rather than medieval era for a specific reason? Or is there something else I'm missing? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion either way, it's just that way before I started editing this article. I'll change it to "medieval" with a piped link to "Medieval philosophy" if you feel that's an improvement. HaEr48 (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@QatarStarsLeague and Compassionate727:: Thanks for all the feedback. I've started working on some of them (see above). There's still more work, will get to it soon. I'll ping you when I'm done, and also please let me know if there are more feedback. HaEr48 (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@QatarStarsLeague: I believe I have responded to all your comments above. Let me know if there's more I can do. HaEr48 (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]