Talk:Proof of the Truthful/GA1

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

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

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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 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)
 * "God found in the Quran.[22][21]" - Please swap the sources to keep them numerical.
 * Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * "(d. 1204).[4][2]" - Please swap the sources to keep them numerical.
 * Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 1) 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&mdash;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.
 * 1) 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
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * no concern
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass pending issues noted above. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Nice work. Easy pass. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)