User talk:HaEr48/Archives/2017/August

Your GA nomination of Forced conversions of Muslims in Spain
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Forced conversions of Muslims in Spain you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

GA2 review of 1982 Iranian diplomats kidnapping
I did the items you had raised in your precise review. Please check my edits. Regards. -- M h hossein   talk 04:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * sorry for the delay, I've been preoccupied with off-wiki matters.. Thanks for the reminder. Will try to look today. HaEr48 (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think, I have addressed your concerns by now. Would you mind seeing if they are OK. Thanks, -- M h hossein   talk 19:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Forced conversions of Muslims in Spain
The article Forced conversions of Muslims in Spain you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Forced conversions of Muslims in Spain for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Forced conversions of Muslims in Spain
The article Forced conversions of Muslims in Spain you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Forced conversions of Muslims in Spain for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Proof of the Truthful
Hello, HaEr48 – I was looking at your latest  to Proof of the Truthful. I can understand why you changed "from" to "by distinguishing". It makes more sense. However, the preposition "between" (or "among" if it's more than two items) is normally used after "distinguish[-ing]", so I added it. Then I re-read the beginning of that section. For ease of discussion, I'm going to copy the first few sentences here, number the sentences, and highlight certain words in bold:

(1) The argument, or proof, starts by distinguishing between a thing that needs an external cause in order to exist – a contingent thing – and a thing that is guaranteed to exist by its essence or intrinsic nature – a necessary existent. (2) The argument tries to prove that there is indeed a necessary existent. (3) The argument begins by considering whether the opposite case could be true: that everything that exists is contingent.

You have "The argument...starts by...", and then two sentences later, "The argument begins by..." Stylistically and conceptually, this isn't so good. I think one of these ought to be changed to something else. Just a few thoughts:

(a) Isn't it more accurate to say that Avicenna distinguishes between a thing that needs an external cause...and a thing that is guaranteed to exist by its essence..., rather than the argument distinguishes?

(b) If you really want to keep the first sentence the way it is, then perhaps the second "The argument begins" can be changed. (It's all a matter of how the argument really begins.) Perhaps you could begin the third sentence in a way that it stems naturally from the second sentence:


 * The argument tries to prove that there is indeed a necessary existent. It does this by considering whether the opposite case could be true: that everything that exists is contingent.

I think you should remove the word "case". I don't think it's necessary. If you do that, it would read as follows:


 * The argument tries to prove that there is indeed a necessary existent. It does this by considering whether the opposite could be true: that everything that exists is contingent.

If you want to make the point that considering whether the opposite could be true is only the first part of the argument, you could add the word "first" before "considering":


 * The argument tries to prove that there is indeed a necessary existent. It does this by first considering whether the opposite could be true: that everything that exists is contingent. – Corinne (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I agree with you and made an edit as per your suggestion. Since you're here, I'm wondering how appropriate is writing "Avicenna says so-and-so" in the present tense when the man is clearly deceased? Is it ok as historical present tense?


 * I wondered about that, too. When we discuss a work of literature, or even non-fiction, we can use present tense: The author presents, explains, describes, argues, etc. When we describe something a historical figure actually did, or said, we would more often use past tense. Upon re-reading the first few sentences of this paragraph, I'm troubled by the switch from "Avicenna distinguishes..." to "The argument...tries..." It somehow separates the argument from Avicenna, which we probably shouldn't do.


 * I'm going to again copy the first few sentences of the paragraph here, and number the sentences, for ease of discussion:


 * (1) Avicenna distinguishes between a thing that needs an external cause in order to exist – a contingent thing – and a thing that is guaranteed to exist by its essence or intrinsic nature – a necessary existent. (2) The argument, or proof, tries to prove that there is indeed a necessary existent. (3) It does this by first considering whether the opposite could be true: that everything that exists is contingent.


 * Perhaps we should just add "In his argument, or proof," before "Avicenna distinguishes"; maybe that would be sufficient to ensure a connection between "Avicenna" and "the argument":


 * In his argument, or proof, Avicenna distinguishes between....


 * Perhaps it would help if we add the word "then" in the second sentence:


 * The argument then tries to prove....


 * I wonder if it would read better if sentence – (2) were changed from:


 * The argument, or proof, then tries to prove that there is indeed a necessary existent.


 * to:


 * The argument then tries to prove the existence of a necessary existent.


 * So, thus far anyway, the first few sentences would read:


 * In his argument, Avicenna distinguishes between a thing that needs an external cause in order to exist – a contingent thing – and a thing that is guaranteed to exist by its essence or intrinsic nature – a necessary existent. The argument then tries to prove the existence of a necessary existent. It does this by first considering whether the opposite could be true: that everything that exists is contingent.


 * What do you think? – Corinne (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)