Talk:Siddhantasara/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 22:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opening statement

Hello, and come what may from this review, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. During the review, I may make copyedits, which I will limit to spelling correction and minor changes to punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. The Nominator(s) should understand that I am a grammar pedant, and I will nitpick in the interest of prose quality. For responding to my comments, please use Done, Fixed, Added, Not done, Doing..., or Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 22:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

~~All three paragraphs of the lead start with the title. To mitigate this, I suggest merging the second and third sentences, as both discuss the book's reception.~~

Done --Gazal world (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Mesmerism is a pseudoscience.~~

@Vami IV: What can we do here ? Please guide me. --Gazal world (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~I recommend changing the "science" in based on the science of mesmerism to "pseudoscience", or delete it altogether.~~ –♠Vami _IV†♠ 07:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Removed the word 'science. --Gazal world (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manilal's theological conclusions are that Āryāvarta is the source of all religions; [...] Could you add a few words to clarify that Āryāvarta refers to a historic region of the Indian subcontinent?

Done --Gazal world (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~The last sentence of the second paragraph of "Methodology" should be moved into "Reception and criticism", and germinated into its own paragraph if material on criticism is abundant enough.~~

Done --Gazal world (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vami_IV. Thanks for your comments. I have addressed all the issues. Please see. --Gazal world (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent. I'll be passing this article now. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 07:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA progress

Images are relevant and free/tagged. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 22:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article passes copyvio scanners with a mere 5.7% likelihood. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 22:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article is stable, with no major edits in months. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 22:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.