Talk:Specious reasoning

Initial review

 * thank you for drafting this article. I am new at being an Articles for Creation reviewer. I have just applied for the permissions to formally conduct these reviews. In the meantime I am offering some comments. The article is short (it qualifies as a stub) but it gets the basics right. So thank you for your work thus far. Here is a non-comprehensive list of improvement notes:
 * More references to better establish notability: There is at present minimum number of sources, which might be sufficient to justify the notability of the topic, but if you could find a few more that would be much better and more clearly meet the requirements.
 * Flesh out body of article: Generally the lead section (the top one or two paragraphs) is meant to summarize the information contained in the body of the article. However, here the lead section itself contains information that doesn't appear in the rest of the article. I guess that is ok as long as we consider the article a stub.
 * However, the mid-term goal is to have any article be more than a stub. While the article can be published as a stub, it would be much better to do a bit more work so that from the outset it is published a more developed article.
 * Having a section with examples is a good idea. However, I think it would be better to flesh it out a bit more, so that no one example is overly prominent and giving it undue weight. Otherwise, as it is presently written, some readers might think that the specious reasoning article was written to make a political point about Brexit. That example could stay in, while adding a couple more.
 * Some more in-line citations: Also, and a slightly lesser point, it is preferable (and helpful for reviewers) that every line or paragraph include in-line citations. I have marked a couple of spots where I felt one citation would be needed.

I commend you for having had a strong start in how you have drafted the article, writing it with clear language, and citing good sources. The draft has good potential. If you could flesh it out a bit more, with some more sources, and some more content added to the article (without necessarily devoting much more time if you don't have it), it would be a significant improvement over the good work you have already done and it would lead to publishing a much better article. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your in-depth response! For what it's worth, I wouldn't have had any clue you were new at being a reviewer.
 * I appreciate your feedback very much and I'll make the necessary improvements to the article. Thank you again! Griseo veritas (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope you have been well. As you saw, another reviewer has declined publishing the draft at this stage. I think the other reviewer pointed to some key aspects that I had expanded upon here: use and cite some more sources to prove the notability of the subject, and write it in a way that it doesn't sound the article is trying to make a political point (re brexit) about it. I hope you can take a couple more steps to improve it and then I'd be happy to re-review myself. Best wishes. Al83tito (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello again, apologies for the delay in improving the article. I’ll begin work on it tonight and make the suggested changes. Thank you for your patience and excellent communication. Griseo veritas (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)