Talk:Jyotir Math/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ssriram mt (talk · contribs) 19:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC) I will take up the review.Ssriram mt (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• The article does not mention the traditions, religious practices or anything other than the leadership.
• The leadership topics also do not give the qualification points like life-long celibacy, education etc.
• The references and the quality of references are also that good(some are vernacular), while there are quite some references in google results.
• It is a Hindu monastic institution - leaving the category, there is no mention anywhere.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead and other contents need expansion.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There are quite some references that lack basic parameters like publisher, first, last names and accessdate. Also quality of references can be better.
	2b. 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).	Goes with 2a above.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Too much is given into leadership alone.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Can't assess this as it talks just about leadership.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image alt needs to be added and a detailed description.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article lacks content. Since there are lot of comments that would need time to fix, i am failing it for now. Please fix the same and subject it to GAN later. Also, it would be better to check the guidelines in WP:GA before renominating it.

As I have said elsewhere, this article is full of bias that Wikipedia refuses to deal with. As someone who practices TM, I've been asked to refrain from ANYTHING having to deal with ANYTHING having to do with TM, the Shankaracharya succession wars at Jyotirmath, or anything else, and yet, "partisans" with other POVs are allowed to manipulate this article as they see fit by posting falsehoods and half-truths in strategic locations in the article designed to be quoted worldwide.

Currently, the google question "Who is the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath" is answered worldwide by paraphrasing one sentence of this wiki entry in order to say that the guy in the picture named as Shanakracharya IS the current Shankarcharya in the caption, even as that has been challenged in court. Sparaig2 (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)