This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ad hominem article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
Ad hominem 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 24, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
Ad feminam was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 17 August 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Ad hominem. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
A fact from Ad hominem appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 16 May 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 06:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Policy compliance:
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: Very interesting Good Article about Rhetoric, which I enjoyed reading. The article is new and long enough, is neutral, Earwig could not detect any plagiarism, both hooks are well cited and interesting (I prefer the first one, but both are ok). The article has no picture, and QPQ is not due, since the author was until now the author of only a DYK. There are only two small issues: a missing citation in one paragraph (I put a citation needed there), and then the lead, which I think should have a short paragraph summarizing the history of the argument. Alex2006 ( talk) 17:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
and his art of being right is missing conspicously from this article. 46.232.229.52 ( talk) 16:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ad hominem article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
Ad hominem 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 24, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
Ad feminam was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 17 August 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Ad hominem. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
A fact from Ad hominem appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 16 May 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 06:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Policy compliance:
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: Very interesting Good Article about Rhetoric, which I enjoyed reading. The article is new and long enough, is neutral, Earwig could not detect any plagiarism, both hooks are well cited and interesting (I prefer the first one, but both are ok). The article has no picture, and QPQ is not due, since the author was until now the author of only a DYK. There are only two small issues: a missing citation in one paragraph (I put a citation needed there), and then the lead, which I think should have a short paragraph summarizing the history of the argument. Alex2006 ( talk) 17:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
and his art of being right is missing conspicously from this article. 46.232.229.52 ( talk) 16:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)