Talk:John Hadley (philosopher)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to review this. Will get to this soon. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly well-written, only a few comments:

In the lead,

"Currently" may seem hazy, why not say since when he has been on the post?

I'm afraid I don't have a source specifying when he started; some time between 2009 and 2012, but I couldn't be more specific. Short of access to someone's CV, piecing together exact dates can be tricky. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hadley has also conducted research...the ethics of aiding others. The first line seems to say the same thing. A bit repetitive?

Yes, point taken. I've rephrased this; I don't want the lead to give the impression that animal property rights theory is all Hadley has written about. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should make it clear in the lead how well his views have been received? Something like "mixed reactions"?

Good idea; I've added something. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In "Animal property rights", "animal rights" is a duplicate link.
- I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand this. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It means "animal rights" is linked more than once, and we typically keep only one link in the article. Unless it is quite a while since the last link, and I don't feel this is the case here. By the way this is a great tool to detect duplinks. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Animal rights is now linked only once in the lead, once in the body and once in the navbox; is this what you were getting at? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Right. Though it's optional to repeat the links from the lead in the rest of the article. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In "Other research",

It could be clearer that "our" means the laypeople in ...are essentially no different to our duties...

Yes- I've changed to "humans'". Josh Milburn (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Pet" looks too common to be linked.

Sure. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No copyvio detected, no dablinks, the only image in the article is properly licensed. I would be glad to promote this once all the above have been resolved. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the speedy review- I was settling down for a long wait! I've replied to your comments individually. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason excellent articles like this one should have to wait so long, so I try to give as many as I can a shove ahead. :) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, good to go. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]