Talk:David Hume/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Mics 777 (talk · contribs) 23:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Beginning review now. Mics 777 (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

There are too many run on sentences in the article. THe punctuation in quotations needs to be fixed--the quotation mark goes after the period. There are several assertions that need to be backed up with references. Overall, it's a good article on a very tricky topic--Hume is no lightweight--, but it needs a few corrections.

Some of the paragraphs ought to be broken up into multiple paragraphs, in my opinion. It will appear more focused and be easier to read.

Mics 777 (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the review. I will get onto it ASAP. However, I have reverted your change of 'parcelled' to 'parceled' - UK English uses the double L. Myrvin (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have split several long paragraphs and done all the punctuation / quotes I can find. There are an awful lot of, what WP:MOSLQ calls, fragments, which I have left. I'm afraid I don't agree with your change to put capital letters in liberty and necessity. These words are not in a quotation but in WP's voice, so capitalizing nouns is not necessary. I shall look at the long sentences and uncited assertions - although I have done many of the latter. Myrvin (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I've finished everything now. Please look at the article again. Myrvin (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Review abandoned
Reviewer Mics 777 has not edited since early on August 7, a few hours after finishing the review here. This was also a first-time review, and some of the advice was incorrect, including that about the punctuation in quotations—Wikipedia uses logical quotation style, which means the quotation goes before the period unless the quotation is a complete sentence, and the period was in the original quote. The review having been abandoned for six weeks, this is being closed and the nomination put back into the reviewing pool with its seniority retained. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)