User talk:Cnilep/Archive/01 January 2017

Request to review Syntactic Structures
Hello, I have been working on this article on and off for a long time. I would be happy if you took some time to read the article and gave me some feedback so that I can improve it in terms of content, language, tone, neutrality, precision, concision, etc. Thanks in advance. Zaheen (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, thank you very much for your review of the article! It has been very helpful. I have followed it up with revisions. I think have addressed most of the issues you have raised in your review. I have mentioned what I did in the talk page. Could you please take a quick look again and let me know if there are other areas of improvement? Zaheen (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In general, I think you've done a good job addressing issues I raised. I wonder if three sections – Rhetorical style, Reception, and Criticisms – are really different enough to require separation? But on the other hand, having all that information in one section would likely be overwhelming. At any rate, I don't suppose I have much additional criticism at the moment. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for all your comments. I'm glad that you liked the changes. As for the organization of the sections, I think they are different enough to warrant their current arrangement. Also, as you said, it keeps the length of sections balanced. As you have no additional criticism, do you think I should nominate the article for GA status at this stage? Zaheen (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to add to my rationale of keeping separate sections on those three things : I actually tried to partially follow the organization of the article On the Origin of Species, a featured article where there are separate sections (or subsections) on the book's literary style, on its reception and finally on challenges to Darwin's theory. Zaheen (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I think a Good Article nomination might be a good way to get additional feedback and move forward toward Featured Article status. Best wishes, Cnilep (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of gold digging at gold digger
Why did you remove gold digging? it is exactly about the same coloquialism as "gold digger". I don't see a reason for removing it, if it were wrongly placed - you could have placed it elsewhere, like the read also section. :( Furthermore I had talked about making the edit previously in the talk page.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 04:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Gold digging. tldr: 'Gold digging' and 'Gold mining' pointed to the same page at the time. Best, Cnilep (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply! I was really baffled by your edit at the time. I replied in turn in talk:gold digging--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 15:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)