Talk:Ontological argument/GA1

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

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 18:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This article needs a lot of work, which is why I am failing it:


 * Prose quality is poor. It's not without merit, but:
 * There is at least one instance of a ref after punctuation;
 * There is at least one instance of a hyphen where a dash is intended;
 * The article features sections written confusingly for the lay reader, including Plantinga's; also, a large amount of terminology could be easily explained (eg. Axiom S5)
 * The clarity and prose go hand in hand and a copyedit could address both.
 * The article is overbalanced in favour of Douglas Gasking, who is not sufficiently well-known compared to the considerable section which lies with him;
 * Gödel is not mentioned by comparison;
 * The referencing is very messy:
 * #3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 all need more details about the work being cited;
 * #38 needs filling out completely (and I think it's a dead link? my Arabic isn't good).
 * The lead needs a greater clarity of the arguments being placed. It needs in an article like this to provide the non-technical overview before things become more detailed.
 * In summary, the article is not a sufficient general overview of the subject. It is rather bitty and feels thrown together.
 * By all means renominate once these issues are addressed. They can be overcome, but I do not think that continuing the review is helpful. Best wishes, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)