# Talk:John Hadley (philosopher)

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Hadley (philosopher)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
It would be interesting to review this. Will get to this soon. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Fairly well-written, only a few comments:

In the lead,
"Currently" may seem hazy, why not say since when he has been on the post?
I'm afraid I don't have a source specifying when he started; some time between 2009 and 2012, but I couldn't be more specific. Short of access to someone's CV, piecing together exact dates can be tricky. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 Hadley has also conducted research...the ethics of aiding others. The first line seems to say the same thing. A bit repetitive?
Yes, point taken. I've rephrased this; I don't want the lead to give the impression that animal property rights theory is all Hadley has written about. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we should make it clear in the lead how well his views have been received? Something like "mixed reactions"?
Good idea; I've added something.  Josh Milburn (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
In "Animal property rights", "animal rights" is a duplicate link.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand this. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
It means "animal rights" is linked more than once, and we typically keep only one link in the article. Unless it is quite a while since the last link, and I don't feel this is the case here. By the way this is a great tool to detect duplinks. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Animal rights is now linked only once in the lead, once in the body and once in the navbox; is this what you were getting at? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Right. Though it's optional to repeat the links from the lead in the rest of the article. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
In "Other research",
It could be clearer that "our" means the laypeople in ...are essentially no different to our duties...
Yes- I've changed to "humans'". Josh Milburn (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
"Pet" looks too common to be linked.
Sure. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
No copyvio detected, no dablinks, the only image in the article is properly licensed. I would be glad to promote this once all the above have been resolved. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the speedy review- I was settling down for a long wait! I've replied to your comments individually. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I see no reason excellent articles like this one should have to wait so long, so I try to give as many as I can a shove ahead. :) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Great, good to go. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Hadley (philosopher). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160528085440/http://www.whp-journals.co.uk/EV/papers/Cooke.pdf to http://www.whp-journals.co.uk/EV/papers/Cooke.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)