GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Katolophyromai ( talk · contribs) 21:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I will review this article. Since Krishna is an important topic that many people are likely to be interested in, I will attempt to review this article section-by-section, starting with the etymology section and working my way down to the bottom. Then, once I have reviewed all of the sections, I will review the lead. The reason I plan on reviewing the lead last is because I want to be able to make sure that it adequately summarizes the content of the rest of the article. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 21:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Mostly good, but here are some criticisms:
Altogether, this section is in very good shape, but, once again, I do have a few criticisms:
This section seems to be very high quality. I have taken the liberty to correct the following minor errors:
Comment on citation formatting
I have noticed that, although the article is well-cited, the citations are not formatted very consistently. It would probably be better to have all of the citations follow a consistent formatting. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 02:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
This section is good as it is. I have no criticism for it other than what I have already said above regarding the citations.
Aside from these two criticisms, this section is fine. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 20:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I will cover the whole section under one heading, sicne this section has very few problems and seems to be ready for GA without any major changes.
This concludes my remarks on the "Life and legends" section. I will now move on to the next section after that. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 18:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I have no problems with this section.
This section is very high quality and interesting, but the first paragraph is rather confusing. It mentions a whole bunch of people that I have never heard of, but gives very little explanation of who these people are or why their positions on Krishna are important. Also, the descriptions of these people's interpretations are extremely vague. The paragraph says:
Ramanuja presented him in terms of qualified monism (Vishishtadvaita).[130] Madhvacharya presented Krishna in the framework of dualism (Dvaita).[131] Jiva Goswami described Krishna theology in terms of Bhakti yoga and Achintya Bheda Abheda.[132] Krishna theology is presented in a pure monism (advaita, called shuddhadvaita) framework by Vallabha Acharya.[133] Madhusudana Sarasvati presented Krishna theology in nondualism-monism framework (Advaita Vedanta), while Adi Shankara in the early 8th century mentioned Krishna in his discussions on Panchayatana puja.
You may want to add more description of who these people are and what their interpretations mean. Aside from the first paragraph, the rest of the section is very good. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 19:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I only have one problem with this section, which is that there is a "citation needed" tag at the end of the last paragraph of the "Indian subcontinent" section. All information in a good article is supposed to be verifiable. Either find a citation to support the information in this paragraph or remove the uncited paragraph altogether. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 20:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
The third sentence of the second paragraph in this section has a few problems. Firstly, the whole sentence is really long and should probably be broken up into several separate sentences. Secondly, the last part of the sentence contains the phrase "while saving the world from all sorts of troubles," which is bizarrely non-specific and just leaves the reader feeling confused. What sort of "troubles" is it talking about? It almost feels like the phrase is phrased to be purposefully evasive. I recommend either deleting the phrase or revising it to make it less confusing. Other than this sentence, everything else in this section is fine as it is. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 21:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
These were the only issues I found with this section. Now I will return to the beginning of the article and review the lead. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 02:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Aside from these issues, I think that the lead does a good job of summarizing the rest of the article. From what I have seen, this article appears to be GA-worthy material, but I will postpone promoting it for a few more days to give you some time to address the new comments I have added here. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 02:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Comments
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Katolophyromai ( talk · contribs) 21:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I will review this article. Since Krishna is an important topic that many people are likely to be interested in, I will attempt to review this article section-by-section, starting with the etymology section and working my way down to the bottom. Then, once I have reviewed all of the sections, I will review the lead. The reason I plan on reviewing the lead last is because I want to be able to make sure that it adequately summarizes the content of the rest of the article. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 21:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Mostly good, but here are some criticisms:
Altogether, this section is in very good shape, but, once again, I do have a few criticisms:
This section seems to be very high quality. I have taken the liberty to correct the following minor errors:
Comment on citation formatting
I have noticed that, although the article is well-cited, the citations are not formatted very consistently. It would probably be better to have all of the citations follow a consistent formatting. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 02:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
This section is good as it is. I have no criticism for it other than what I have already said above regarding the citations.
Aside from these two criticisms, this section is fine. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 20:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I will cover the whole section under one heading, sicne this section has very few problems and seems to be ready for GA without any major changes.
This concludes my remarks on the "Life and legends" section. I will now move on to the next section after that. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 18:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I have no problems with this section.
This section is very high quality and interesting, but the first paragraph is rather confusing. It mentions a whole bunch of people that I have never heard of, but gives very little explanation of who these people are or why their positions on Krishna are important. Also, the descriptions of these people's interpretations are extremely vague. The paragraph says:
Ramanuja presented him in terms of qualified monism (Vishishtadvaita).[130] Madhvacharya presented Krishna in the framework of dualism (Dvaita).[131] Jiva Goswami described Krishna theology in terms of Bhakti yoga and Achintya Bheda Abheda.[132] Krishna theology is presented in a pure monism (advaita, called shuddhadvaita) framework by Vallabha Acharya.[133] Madhusudana Sarasvati presented Krishna theology in nondualism-monism framework (Advaita Vedanta), while Adi Shankara in the early 8th century mentioned Krishna in his discussions on Panchayatana puja.
You may want to add more description of who these people are and what their interpretations mean. Aside from the first paragraph, the rest of the section is very good. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 19:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I only have one problem with this section, which is that there is a "citation needed" tag at the end of the last paragraph of the "Indian subcontinent" section. All information in a good article is supposed to be verifiable. Either find a citation to support the information in this paragraph or remove the uncited paragraph altogether. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 20:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
The third sentence of the second paragraph in this section has a few problems. Firstly, the whole sentence is really long and should probably be broken up into several separate sentences. Secondly, the last part of the sentence contains the phrase "while saving the world from all sorts of troubles," which is bizarrely non-specific and just leaves the reader feeling confused. What sort of "troubles" is it talking about? It almost feels like the phrase is phrased to be purposefully evasive. I recommend either deleting the phrase or revising it to make it less confusing. Other than this sentence, everything else in this section is fine as it is. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 21:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
These were the only issues I found with this section. Now I will return to the beginning of the article and review the lead. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 02:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Aside from these issues, I think that the lead does a good job of summarizing the rest of the article. From what I have seen, this article appears to be GA-worthy material, but I will postpone promoting it for a few more days to give you some time to address the new comments I have added here. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 02:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Comments