Talk:Thus have I heard
Thus have I heard has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: April 10, 2019. (Reviewed version). |
A fact from Thus have I heard appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 December 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Thus have I heard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 22:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I will review this in the next week or so.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, I look forward to it.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Farang Rak Tham: I came down ill the last few days.. Sorry for the delay! I'll get to this review this week definitely.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, great, Gen. Quon!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Farang Rak Tham: I came down ill the last few days.. Sorry for the delay! I'll get to this review this week definitely.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Farang Rak Tham: I apologize that it took me so long to get to this. For the most part, this is a very well-written, interesting article. I did some minor copy-editing/moving stuff (here), and if any of that rubs you the wrong way, feel free to revert. What follows are some issues/suggestions:
- I'm a fan of including a reference after every incidence of quotation. I'd recommend doing so after "could by itself quite adequately explain it" just so we're clear where that is coming from.
- Done, you're right, that's how it should be done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 06:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Indologist Konrad Klaus [de] disagrees with Brough..." This comes a paragraph after Brough is discussed. Is there a way to rearrange this so that it immediately follows Brough's introduction? I think that would be a bit more logical.
- I have merged the two paragraphs. Will that suffice?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 06:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- That reads better.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Religious Studies scholar Mark Tatz disagrees with Galloway's interpretation, however, though Galloway rejects most of Tatz' arguments." This is a confusingly worded sentence. I'd recommend re-writing, or breaking into two smaller sentences.
- What is the publisher for Klaus 2007?
- Totally option suggestion: add location for the book references.
That's all I can find. Putting on hold.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Good job! Thanks for the speedy turn around (and again, sorry about my slow delay)! This is a very interesting article and I'm happy to see it promoted.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)