Talk:Jainism/GA3

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 10:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A quick fail unfortunately. I will be giving a general idea of the major issues with the article in a while. Ya sh ! 10:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While a lot has been improved, I am afraid that this still fails a number of GA criteria. A big issue here is the lack of references. Large portions of prose remains unsourced. Every fact in a GA should cite at least one reliable source and a lot of work needs to be done here. Also, there is inconsistency in the references present. Some parameters are wrongly placed. For example, "The Hindu" should be in "work=" and not in "publisher=". The date should be consistent and should only follow one pattern, either yyyy-mm-dd or dd-mm-yyyy. It should be the same throughout. Coming to the main issue that I see is the quality and amount of prose. While it is not necessary for GAs to cover each and every topic, they should properly cover every topic. A subject as vast as this, should have more information than currently present. More on Art and Reception can be added. Also, the article is in need of a good copyedit. The article does not feel neutral and many weasel words, vague terms, and many subjective phrases are used. The article presents a particular POV about various things instead of having them in an encyclopedic manner. MoS issues persist as well. See also section has way too many links. Size of paragraphs is not consistent with some being very small and some large. More balanced paragraphs would be preferred. Also, the lead doesn't summarize the article in a way it should. The lead should mention almost every major sub-topic used in the article. The lead currently only talks about what the religion is and nothing about the other topics covered in the prose. If possible, remove the references from the lead and use them in the prose. As such, everything in the lead should be covered in detail in the prose and every major sub-topic should have a mention in the lead.

These issues that I see are after having a quick look at the article and I fear a closure look would reveal more problems. As of now, the article fails GAC #1a, #1b and #2a. #2c and #2d are doubtful and will require a close inspection. It also fails #3a #3b and #4. These are the main issues with the article. I am afraid this article is far from reaching the GA status and needs a lot of attention. I suggest you request a copyedit and take it to the peer review if you need to know more about the issues. I am failing this as the mentioned problems would take really long to be fixed and it is better to have a "good" version of any article to get reviewed. This may be helpful. Best, Ya sh ! 16:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yash! This article has improved a lot as compared to last time. Most of the issues have also been resolved. Can you please take a look at it now. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]