Talk:Jainism/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Suresh Elangovan (talk · contribs) 10:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC) I am planning to do my review and comments before end of Dec 2012.

Resolved comments from JZCL (copied from talk page)

Hello. I have made considerable changes to the article on Jainism. Thanks for the review. If possible, please advice me how to further improve the article. I have listed that article for GAN. Do you think it meets the criteria? Rahuljain2307 (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Wow - well done for that major copyedit - this is a great improvement. Well done. Alas there may still be a few things: Lead section Citations aren't needed in lede. The three Jewels There shouldn't be a space between are and :. Briefly explain the three. Anēkāntavāda Consequently, no single, specific, human view can claim to represent absolute truth. Remember, we are not writing this from a Jain's point of view, we are writing it from a Neutral Point of View. Reword for NPOV and add a citation. Soul and Karma CN for Hence, the scriptures advise carefulness in actions, awareness of the world, and purity in thoughts as means to avoid the burden of karma. Demographics Unfortunately (at the moment) the downfall of the article. No citations whatsoever!! Citations need to be added here, or else there is no chance. Denominations Avoid one-sentence paragraphs. CN for last paragraph. Add a caption for the image is probably best. Festivals Citation needed for last bullet point. Comparative studies Is ref 157 for the quote? If it is, add page number and move it to after the colon; if not, find the quoter fast! Notes Sorry some of it is so picky, but you'll need it if you decide for another FA! Ref 20 has a very broad page range - maybe narrow it down a bit. Ref 31 has a full stop after it - take it out for consistency. Ref 62 needs pp instead of p. Ref 64 needs page number. Ref 66 should be consistent with other referencing style, therefore make it 400-407. Refs 94 and 95 should be combined as they overlap each other. Ref 96 needs a page number. Ref 97 needs a page number. Ref 98 needs a page number. Ref 99 needs a page number. Ref 101 needs a page number. Ref 102 needs a page number. Ref 108 needs a page number. Ref 109 needs a page number. Refs 113 and 114 should be combined. Refs 115 and 116 should be combined. Ref 117 needs a page number. Ref 124 needs correct formatting for cite web template e.g. work etc. Ref 128 needs a page number. Ref 129's first letter needs to be capitalised. Ref 130 needs a page number. Ref 131 needs a page number. Ref 144 needs a page number. Ref 146 needs spaces between page numbers. Ref 148 needs spaces between page numbers. Ref 152 needs a page number. Ref 157 needs a page number. References & Further reading Just one comment for it all really - make sure all books' ISBN numbers are present. I hope that's enough to keep you going, Rahul! Please, feel free to tick Done or Cross out anything that's above, so you can see everything you still need to do. There may be other things, and if you get this all done I'll try and find some more. JZCL 17:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Hello, thanks a lot for the reply. I have removed citations from lead section, however, I have left a small number of citations in the lead as those claims are very likely to be challenged. I removed that unreferenced point in 'Festivals' section as it was not that relevant. I don't think I can find ISBN numbers for all the books. Some of the referenced books do not have one. Rest of the changes are almost exactly as you advised. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Here's a committed editor if ever I saw one! Well done again Rahul. There might have just been one thing you missed - ref 23 has a very broad page range and it might be good if it could be reduced to a maximum of about 10. As for the references and further reading, I think some of the books may be able to take ISBNs (for example, I found Macmillan Encyclopedia of Death and Dying has ISBN 002865689X). If there are any you think have ISBNs, it's definitely best to include them. But don't get me wrong, I can't believe you did it all in a day! Well done for your valuable contributions to the article. If I were doing the GA review, when you'd sorted out those two things, I would pass it. JZCL 20:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This might be useful. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 12:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Very useful to go through other reviewers comments as well. I spent quality time this morning to review Jainism article. In my view, it meets all of the Wikipedia Good Article criteria provided. It is written in manual-style, without grammatical and spelling errors, factually accurate with conscious removal of natural bias that arise in subject matter of this kind, broad and at the same time covering the major points clearly. I did not find any original research or opinions included as part of this artice and it has got credible references to support the facts described, wherever required. Jainism is a major topic and it is impossible to cover all topics in this page - the expectation on the reader willbe that all major points covered. In that sense, a section on Jain Symbols is perhaps required to make it complete. Once that is done, I will be happy to mark it as Good Wikipedia Article. Thanks to you for the mammoth effort you have spent in getting to this stage. Well done. Suresh Elangovan (talk) 02:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I have made a section on symbols as required. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

NOT A VALID REVIEWER

Unfortunately, per Wikipedia:GAN#How_to_review_an_article: you cannot review an article if you are the nominator or have made significant contributions to it prior to the review, Suresh is not eligible to review this article. You are the primary contributor to this article, having made 423 edits and must therefore immediately ask for a second opinion. JZCL 17:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

JZCL, off late I have not made significant contributions to this article and it is changed in terms of format substantially. I will request for a second opinion straight away as advised. Since you have already done one round of reviewing, will you be interested to do the review and comment? Thanks. Suresh Elangovan (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when you made the edits, as you are still the main contributor to the article. It's about your interest with the topic. Your review and comments are appreciated, and if you enjoy carrying them out, why not review some articles in the GAN list that don't fall under your conflict of interest? JZCL 16:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I will ask for a change of reviewer. This seems more appropriate because the current reviewer is not valid. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)