Talk:Pseudo-Elias

Article rating
@Srnec - I've expanded the article a bit, to the point where I think it now meets the B-class criteria, but I wanted to explain my rationale behind my prior rating of this version.

B1. ''The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. ''

Yes.

B2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.

Yes (mostly). I think that there could be more information on the actual content of the work, and answers to some of the "why" of, for example, the attributions of authorship aren't considered likely, or what about the philosophical content is a misunderstanding of Aristotle or Plato. But this is me nitpicking, these aren't obvious omissions per se.

B3. The article has a defined structure.

No. This was the main reason I rated it C-class. Generally what I found lacking in the article before was the organization of the material, the lack of section dividers, and the missing infobox, but I think at this point it meets the criteria.

B4. The article is reasonably well-written.

Yes.

B5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.

Yes.

B6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.

I think this was also lacking before, so I've added a bit more background on the topic for someone who might be less familiar. I'm not sure how many people would end up on this page who had no familiarity with Commentataries on Aristotle and Porphyry's Isagoge generally and the work of Elias or David specifically, but it doesn't hurt to explain a bit more. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)