Hi Paris1127, I did some clean-up on Maha Shivaratri - specifically re-structured most of the article to improve the flow, corrected tone to sound more neutral, inserted Wikilinks wherever needed, added some Refs, and copy-edited. Since the last article improvement notice was put in by you, I thought I'd request for your comments on how the article looks and whether it warrants removing any of those notices. Many thanks! - Sdsouza ( talk) 17:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- You've certainly improved the page. I would advise keeping the tags on the page, as, for example, numerous paragraphs still do not contain citations. I am also somewhat concerned about the tone of the article (I can't really explain why...), but you did improve it. Could some of the sections be combined?
Paris1127 (
talk) 17:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- That was quick, thanks! Citations is an area of concern, yes, as is my discovery that large parts of the text are verbatim copies of text blocks from other websites. I focused primarily on Wiki-linking and wringing some cohesion out of the "narrative", dropped a lot of adjectives - stupendous and magnificent and the ilk. Thanks again for the feedback, will keep working on it.
Sdsouza (
talk) 17:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Copied and pasted portions should be removed or reworded (and cited). Copyvio detector found nothing too egregious, but that is not always reliable, particularly (I think), if multiple sources are copied and pasted. Thanks for fixing superlatives. Paris1127 ( talk) 18:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- That was quick, thanks! Citations is an area of concern, yes, as is my discovery that large parts of the text are verbatim copies of text blocks from other websites. I focused primarily on Wiki-linking and wringing some cohesion out of the "narrative", dropped a lot of adjectives - stupendous and magnificent and the ilk. Thanks again for the feedback, will keep working on it.
Sdsouza (
talk) 17:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Paris1127, I did some clean-up on Maha Shivaratri - specifically re-structured most of the article to improve the flow, corrected tone to sound more neutral, inserted Wikilinks wherever needed, added some Refs, and copy-edited. Since the last article improvement notice was put in by you, I thought I'd request for your comments on how the article looks and whether it warrants removing any of those notices. Many thanks! - Sdsouza ( talk) 17:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- You've certainly improved the page. I would advise keeping the tags on the page, as, for example, numerous paragraphs still do not contain citations. I am also somewhat concerned about the tone of the article (I can't really explain why...), but you did improve it. Could some of the sections be combined?
Paris1127 (
talk) 17:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- That was quick, thanks! Citations is an area of concern, yes, as is my discovery that large parts of the text are verbatim copies of text blocks from other websites. I focused primarily on Wiki-linking and wringing some cohesion out of the "narrative", dropped a lot of adjectives - stupendous and magnificent and the ilk. Thanks again for the feedback, will keep working on it.
Sdsouza (
talk) 17:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Copied and pasted portions should be removed or reworded (and cited). Copyvio detector found nothing too egregious, but that is not always reliable, particularly (I think), if multiple sources are copied and pasted. Thanks for fixing superlatives. Paris1127 ( talk) 18:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- That was quick, thanks! Citations is an area of concern, yes, as is my discovery that large parts of the text are verbatim copies of text blocks from other websites. I focused primarily on Wiki-linking and wringing some cohesion out of the "narrative", dropped a lot of adjectives - stupendous and magnificent and the ilk. Thanks again for the feedback, will keep working on it.
Sdsouza (
talk) 17:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)