Talk:Proof of the Truthful/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 20:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the 2017 WikiCup. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Origin
"in multiple books of the Metaphysics of the Healing" - I think this wording is clumsy. The linked article describes it as "the Metaphysics section of The Book of Healing", which I think sounds better.
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Argument
"and having a will " - this item is the middle of a list, so and isn't needed. In keeping with the adjective nature of the list, I suggest substituting rephrasing it as willful.
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"God found in the Quran.[22][21]" - Please swap the sources to keep them numerical.
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction
"it is also "enthusiastically" received," This sentence has two citations, so it's not clear which one used the quoted descriptor.
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"(d. 1204).[4][2]" - Please swap the sources to keep them numerical.
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"philosophy Jon McGinnis said" - A search doesn't return much for Jon McGinnis. Is he notable enough for a redlink?
Unlinked. HaEr48 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Classification as ontological or cosmological argument
Are all the redlinked scholars notable enough for their own articles?
Unlinked all red links. HaEr48 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
"Avicenna or Ibn Sina (980–1037). " It's not immediately clear that Avicenna is aka Ibn Sina. I think it should be rewritten as "Avicenna (also known as Ibn Sina, 980-1037)".
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The MOS for philosophy only gives general advice for section titles. I think "Classification as ontological or cosmological argument" is a bit long and suggest shortening it to "Classification", but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
no concern

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
no concern

C. It contains no original research:
no concern

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
earwig returns weak results caused by common phrases.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
I am not overly familiar with the subject, but nothing has obvious has been omitted.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Active improvement occurring. No evidence of vandalism or edit warring.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Rationales provided, no concern

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
no concern
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pass pending issues noted above. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Argento Surfer: Thank you for the review. Sorry for the delay in responding - somehow the review slipped my attention. I hope my updates suffice to address your concern. HaEr48 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Easy pass. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]