Wikipedia:Peer review/Sri Aurobindo/archive1

Sri Aurobindo

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because want to this article to FA suggestions in converting this to FA would be helpfull

Thanks, Shrikanthv (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Spike Wilbury

General

• I noted that you have quite a few citations to autobiographical works and self-published works. Ensure only basic facts are cited there, and nothing controversial or requiring academic inquiry or confirmation. For these you need secondary sources.
• Check wikilinks; key terms should be linked in the lead and then first mention in the body. For example, ICS. Also check for double-redirects; your first link to ICS goes to a page that redirects elsewhere.

Lead

• "turned into a spiritual reformer" is an awkward phrase. Maybe "became a spiritual reformer" or "refocused on spiritual reform".
• " writing articles against their rule" Clarify what is meant here. Opposing their rule? Critical of their rule?
• "Sri Aurobindo evolved a new method of spiritual practice" Evolved is an awkward term. Invented? Developed?
• "Aurobindo was the first Indian to create a major literary corpus in English." This strikes me as something that could be challenged, and it is sourced to something that looks like a college textbook. Do you have any other academic sources about this? Do you have any information on the strength and authority of that book?

Biography

• The Early Life section seems lightly cited. Do the citations at the ends of the paragraphs support all the text? If you go to FAC, reviewers may request more citations.

Will return with more later. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, have started to work on that but Spike Wilbury , have little concern over claims such as below

" Although his family were Bengali, his father believed British culture to be superior to that of his countrymen. "

the actual book here and at page 6

I feel its a wrong claim , Their is another senior editor involved in current correction, so what would be the right thing to do ? (unless if have to go for edit wars ) Shrikanthv (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The source given at the end of that paragraph is Heehs (2008), pp. 8-9. Do you understand how our citation system works in this case? Anyway, the source on p. 8 seems to support that claim. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)