Talk:Alvin Plantinga's free-will defense/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   In a truncated form, Plantinga's argument goes something like this: Could this be reworded in a more encyclopaedic manner - e.g. Plantinga's argument can be summarized as:

   Lead: can we have one sentence summarising the position of those who oppose this idea. The lead should adequately summarize the whole artcile which it does not do at the moment.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I accept all references to print sources in good faith as I cannot check them. The Harvard citation template used {{harvnb}} doesn't seem to work as documented at Template:Harvard citation no brackets. Reading User:RexxS/Cite multiple pages. It might be to do with the naming of the inline citations. Can this be sorted as currently nothing happens when you click on the wiki links, but in fact one should be taken to the citation fo teh summarized work. Fixed the Harvard referencing. It needed the addition of |ref=harv into the target cite book or journal.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Some attention to the lead and making the Havard inline citations work corrcetly. On hold for seven days.

   Thanks for fixing my concerns. I am happy to pass this as worthy of GA status. A good concise and clear explanation of a tent of philosophy. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)