Talk:Paul Voermans
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Paul Voermans is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|||
The following sentence seems ambiguous to me: Without heavy scientific element, this work could be considered slipstream fiction written from the "inside" of the field.
Does it mean that the book lacks any "heavy scientific element" and can therefore be considered slipstream? Or does it mean that the book could have been considered slipstream but for having a heavy scientific element? (I can't remember the book well enough to disambiguate based on my own knowledge of it.) Metamagician3000 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Though such memory as I have suggests that the former meaning was intended. Yes? No? Metamagician3000 14:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I preferred the other photo, the Easter 2006 one, but I'm biased I guess. ;) Metamagician3000 06:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
