Talk:Rajiv Malhotra/GA1
GA Review[edit]
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 toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 20:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I will take this review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for taking this one up. Looking forward to working with you. Matarisvan (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch,
fiction,and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I am going to quickfail this nomination based on quickfail criterion 1: it is a long way from meeting the GA criteria. I will outline a selection of problems below:
- The article excessively relies on the writings of the article subject, which cannot be considered reliable sources in this context. The words "According to Malhotra" appear thirteen (!) times. This means that there is no way of knowing if the "Criticism of Christian Yoga" section, for example, is a "main aspect of the topic", or just WP:UNDUE. 32 of the 41 citations in this section are to Malhotra's writings; it would much more preferable if it was 3 out of 41.
- There are also occasions where there appears to be original research. The paragraph summarizing the subversion of Biblical cosmology by the principal [sic] of Rta is not verifiable in the cited text, although, considering the lack of use of page numbers, I may have missed it.
- MOS:LEAD, part of criterion 1b), is not met. Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, I would expect an article of close to 7,000 words (including notes) to have three or four paragraphs. The current two short paragraphs unsurprisingly are unable to properly summarize the article, especially as information such as the translation of the Tengyur do not appear in the body. As it stands, the lead does not adequately "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"—his books and reception are not discussed in any detail whatsoever.
- The article's layout is very confused. All the subsections in the section titled "Infinity Foundation" have nothing to do with the foundation itself. Instead, there is an in-depth discussion of his ideals and criticism of American academia, followed by subsections for each of his books (later duplicated in the "Books" subsection). I do not think that this article meets MOS:LAYOUT as it stands.
- The (uncaptioned) infobox image is from a now-offline website which reserved all copyright (Copyright @ All Rights Reserved at bottom). This means that the image used is definitely incorrectly tagged, and probably ineligible to be on Commons anyway.
- Per MOS:EMBED, "embedded lists should be used only when appropriate". This article has four embedded lists, and I think only one of them (on the stages of the U-Turn theory) is necessary—the rest can be converted to prose.To sum up, there are considerable problems with GA criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, and so I am stopping this review here. Feel free to renominate once you have fixed the problems, and ping me if you have any questions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
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.