User:Deckhout/sandbox

Article evaluation for scholasticism:

second paragraph in summary lacks citation, it doesn't really state where they are pulled the info from. but it could be tied to the same citation as the previous or following paragraph.

first paragraph in 'early scholasticism' actually discusses the birth of schools under Charlemagne, but lacks citation.

the last two paragraph of 'high scholasticism' also lack any citations, but they are marked for need citations, stating that there have a reliable source.

reformed scholasticism and neo-scholasticism both have single statements with no citations.

analytical scholasticism has no citations, but is linked with/ under an article called analytical philosophy.

scholastic method section is entirely void of citation.

several incomplete citations are listed in the references section, additionally there are citations of yahoo groups pages.

2. de Ridder-Symoens 1992, pp. 47–55

8. MacManus, p 215

13. Watt

17. Fryde

23. Leo Elders Accessed 30 August 201

[https://groups.yahoo.com/group/aquinas/ 26. https://groups.yahoo.com/group/aquinas/]

[https://groups.yahoo.com/group/xianphil/ 27. https://groups.yahoo.com/group/xianphil/]

[https://groups.yahoo.com/group/thomism/ 28. https://groups.yahoo.com/group/thomism/]

deckhout