Talk:Adi Da/GA1

GA Review

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

The NPOV template makes this a quick fail candidate. As the template has been there for some weeks and little or no progress seems to be being made, i don't see it being possible for this article to pass GA at this time. I will still do an initial review, in the hope that editors with take this dispute through mediation and renominate an improved article in the future.

I will of course take into account any well-reasoned disagreements with my assessments against the criteria, however, I will not pass a templated version of this article, and will ignore arguements that the template is improperly placed: That must be decided by consensus on the talk page. As this seems unlikely considering the strong opinions there, i would strongly recoment starting mediation or at least a RfC.YobMod 12:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Prose and grammar can be tightened, but good enough for GA. The biography section has an off-topic paragraph that should be in a section about his organisation. The isolated single sentence paragraphs should also be better incorperated here.

This article has many sections but not much use of subsections. To improve readability and appearance, some small sections should be combined. eg: Books and Art are could be made into subsections under a broader title like "Works".

Many sections would be improved by addition of introductory sentences or paragraphs. One example (there are others like this) is the controversies and influence sections, which just launch into a list of controversies, without even a "Adi Da's spiritual teachings and activitie undertaken by his organisation have attacted controversy for...."

Splitting the external links into Advocacy and Criticism seems designed to inflame confrontations. I would chose less opposed titles (Is the page on his art really "advocating" something rather than selling it? Or, as there are only 4 links, simpy no subittles. Is there are reason the crit links cannot be used as references and their information put in the article?

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I didn't find anything thought needed a specific source that didn't have one.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This seems to cover the main aspects on would expect. I would prefer to see more detail on his published works though. Short summaries of his novel and other books would be helpful. There are also multiple review of his art and fction avaiable that should be covered in more depth. The information given is all on topic.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   To me,this read as a generally neutral BLP. His teachings are covered, but not treated as being fact or overly denigrated, and the biography, works (books and arts) and criticism sections seem to be reporting facts without biased tone or selection of sources. However, the there are continuing arguments on the talk page and a NPOV template, so i cannot pass this until editors come to consensus.

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Some very nice images here. The Seven Stages chart is sinply too small to be of any use at all. It should be made large enough so that at least someone with perfect vision could make out the text. I'm not sure the fair use rationales for both the book covers is really valid: I don't see how a basic cover add significantly to understanding of this article. Maybe keep only one? Whether kept or not, both need a caption explaining what is is and why it is there, and possibly resizing so the text is readable.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I hope my review is helpful. Ilthough i gave a review rather than a simple quick fail, i am still going to fail this article for now. If the improvments i suggested are implemented, and the content dispute sorted out, i think this would be a nice and intersting GA. Good luck improving the article and any future nomination.YobMod 13:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)