Wikipedia:Peer review/Bhagavad Gita/archive2
Bhagavad Gita[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of work has been done on the content, citations and NPOV issues in the article, recently. I would like to iron out any more issues before this is taken to GAR.
Thanks, CorrectKnowledge (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comments from Tito Dutta
- Some refs need to be expanded, add ISBN publisher etc. We can use Harvnb or sfn ref style!
Done - Ref 39 ref format should be corrected Done
--Tito Dutta ✉ 15:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the barnstar. So, what do you think? Is the article up to the GAR mark yet? CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- What do you think? --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I think it is good enough for FAR. :) Yeah, to me it looks good enough for a GA status. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Go ahead then! I hope someone'll pick the article quickly before my Wikibreak so that I can join the GA discussion! --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have added the GAN template in Talk:Bhagavad Gita. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be greatly surprised if the article makes it to the GA status. It's a good try, but, IMHO, it still requires a great deal of work on its content, structure, style, and even punctuation, to become eligible as a GAN. If I were you I would not rush it to the nomination yet. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have added the GAN template in Talk:Bhagavad Gita. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Go ahead then! I hope someone'll pick the article quickly before my Wikibreak so that I can join the GA discussion! --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I think it is good enough for FAR. :) Yeah, to me it looks good enough for a GA status. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- What do you think? --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the barnstar. So, what do you think? Is the article up to the GAR mark yet? CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- To my mind, the use of images is a little messy; they are all bunched up on the right hand side and near the top. Could they be redistributed in a more elegant manner ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Done Thank you for pointing that out. I have moved the images so that they appear to be evenly distributed across the page. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 04:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)