Talk:Thus have I heard/GA1

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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 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.

 Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 06:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• What is the publisher for Klaus 2007?

 Added.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 06:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Totally option suggestion: add location for the book references.

 Doing....--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 06:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

Thanks!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.