Talk:Bhagavad Gita/GA1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Dwaipayanc (talk | contribs) good work |
Amitrochates (talk | contribs) →GA Review: reply |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
<!-- Please add all review comments below this comment, and do not alter what is above. To keep the review within a single section, please do not use level 2 headers (==...==) below to break up the review. Use level 3 (===...===), level 4 and so on.--> |
<!-- Please add all review comments below this comment, and do not alter what is above. To keep the review within a single section, please do not use level 2 headers (==...==) below to break up the review. Use level 3 (===...===), level 4 and so on.--> |
||
:Thank you for choosing to review the article. You said [[Wikipedia:Peer_review/Bhagavad_Gita/archive2|here]] that the article had problems with "content, structure, style, and even punctuation". I and {{U|Titodutta}} will try to take care of any problems you list here. Needless to say, you are free to make corrections to the article too. Thanks again. [[User:CorrectKnowledge|CorrectKnowledge]] ([[User talk:CorrectKnowledge|talk]]) 09:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC) |
:Thank you for choosing to review the article. You said [[Wikipedia:Peer_review/Bhagavad_Gita/archive2|here]] that the article had problems with "content, structure, style, and even punctuation". I and {{U|Titodutta}} will try to take care of any problems you list here. Needless to say, you are free to make corrections to the article too. Thanks again. [[User:CorrectKnowledge|CorrectKnowledge]] ([[User talk:CorrectKnowledge|talk]]) 09:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
::The structure of the article is really poor. It is full of "choppy" short paragraphs. One option could be to merge paragraphs that are similarly themed or that have some connection through the content. As an example, "background" and "characters" can be coalesced together. The upper half of the article gives a very "listy" feeling rather than "prosy". Regards.--[[User:Dwaipayanc|Dwaipayan]] ([[User_talk:Dwaipayanc|talk]]) 02:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC) |
::The structure of the article is really poor. It is full of "choppy" short paragraphs. One option could be to merge paragraphs that are similarly themed or that have some connection through the content. As an example, "background" and "characters" can be coalesced together. The upper half of the article gives a very "listy" feeling rather than "prosy". Regards.--[[User:Dwaipayanc|Dwaipayan]] ([[User_talk:Dwaipayanc|talk]]) 02:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::I have restructured the content into longer paragraphs and merged the redundant subsections. I have left the characters subsection as it is. It is not really needed, given all the characters are otherwise introduced in the article. However, I feel it might help a reader new to the Gita. Of course, it can be removed if it still makes the article look list-like. Thank you for the suggestions. Regards. --[[User:CorrectKnowledge|CorrectKnowledge]] ([[User talk:CorrectKnowledge|talk]]) 18:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC) |
:::I have restructured the content into longer paragraphs and merged the redundant subsections. I have left the characters subsection as it is. It is not really needed, given all the characters are otherwise introduced in the article. However, I feel it might help a reader new to the Gita. Of course, it can be removed if it still makes the article look list-like. Thank you for the suggestions. Regards. --[[User:CorrectKnowledge|CorrectKnowledge]] ([[User talk:CorrectKnowledge|talk]]) 18:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::I have not read the article thoroughly. However, after your restructuring, the look is much better, more prose-like. IMO it is ok to have the short "characters" subsection, as it introduces the principal characters to an uninitiated reader.--[[User:Dwaipayanc|Dwaipayan]] ([[User_talk:Dwaipayanc|talk]]) 04:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC) |
::::I have not read the article thoroughly. However, after your restructuring, the look is much better, more prose-like. IMO it is ok to have the short "characters" subsection, as it introduces the principal characters to an uninitiated reader.--[[User:Dwaipayanc|Dwaipayan]] ([[User_talk:Dwaipayanc|talk]]) 04:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::Thank you. I was suffering from an editor's block, if there is such a thing. I just couldn't see anything wrong with the article. Your comments were very helpful and pointed me in the right direction. I will be grateful for any more suggestions you might have. Regards. [[User:CorrectKnowledge|CorrectKnowledge]] ([[User talk:CorrectKnowledge|talk]]) 04:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 04:23, 8 August 2012
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will review the GAN in the next few days. Cinosaur (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Reviewer: Cinosaur (talk · contribs) 06:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for choosing to review the article. You said here that the article had problems with "content, structure, style, and even punctuation". I and Titodutta will try to take care of any problems you list here. Needless to say, you are free to make corrections to the article too. Thanks again. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- The structure of the article is really poor. It is full of "choppy" short paragraphs. One option could be to merge paragraphs that are similarly themed or that have some connection through the content. As an example, "background" and "characters" can be coalesced together. The upper half of the article gives a very "listy" feeling rather than "prosy". Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have restructured the content into longer paragraphs and merged the redundant subsections. I have left the characters subsection as it is. It is not really needed, given all the characters are otherwise introduced in the article. However, I feel it might help a reader new to the Gita. Of course, it can be removed if it still makes the article look list-like. Thank you for the suggestions. Regards. --CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have not read the article thoroughly. However, after your restructuring, the look is much better, more prose-like. IMO it is ok to have the short "characters" subsection, as it introduces the principal characters to an uninitiated reader.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. I was suffering from an editor's block, if there is such a thing. I just couldn't see anything wrong with the article. Your comments were very helpful and pointed me in the right direction. I will be grateful for any more suggestions you might have. Regards. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have not read the article thoroughly. However, after your restructuring, the look is much better, more prose-like. IMO it is ok to have the short "characters" subsection, as it introduces the principal characters to an uninitiated reader.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have restructured the content into longer paragraphs and merged the redundant subsections. I have left the characters subsection as it is. It is not really needed, given all the characters are otherwise introduced in the article. However, I feel it might help a reader new to the Gita. Of course, it can be removed if it still makes the article look list-like. Thank you for the suggestions. Regards. --CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- The structure of the article is really poor. It is full of "choppy" short paragraphs. One option could be to merge paragraphs that are similarly themed or that have some connection through the content. As an example, "background" and "characters" can be coalesced together. The upper half of the article gives a very "listy" feeling rather than "prosy". Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)