Talk:Jainism/GA7

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 00:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. I have already looked it over several times and it appears to be a promising candidate. I see that it was formerly a GA article, but was delisted (although, actually, I noticed that, if you check the GA articles list for "Philosophy and religion," it is still on the list; apparently someone forgot to remove it.) I have nominated a number of articles in this category, including Inanna, Enlil, Anunnaki, Athena, and Pythagoras and there are quite a few more articles I am working on that are still yet to come, so I thought I would do my duty and review some articles, since the backlog seems to be fairly long and still growing. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Katolophyromai: This review is yours to complete, but as the article stands, I do not see how it can pass. There are severe issues with the prose, chiefly resulting from it being written from a Jain point of view, rather than an independent one. Even the first sentence is a problem; the relative antiquity of Hinduism and Jainism is certainly not that clear cut. Vanamonde (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I have been looking back through the past GA reviews for this article and I noticed that many of the criticisms that were brought up in them have still not been addressed. I was planning on failing the article already based on that fact alone, but I appreciate your input on the state of the article. I strongly recommend that the nominator read through all the previous GA reviews (all six of them!) and implement the changes suggested in them before attempting to renominate this article again. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support a fail, or a voluntary withdraw. Yep, the lead sentence is reflective of the problem. The article has improved quite a bit since the last rejections. Still it is a long way to go before it is GA-nom ready. Particularly the Beliefs and philosophy section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·