Talk:Mount Kailash/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs) 09:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: TrangaBellam (talk · contribs) 12:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sourcing

I cast a glance at the sources used in the section on Hinduism and the lesser said, the better:

Source 1 (Chandra;1998) is published by a publisher of barely any repute; I cannot find anything on the academic credentials of the author, either. ~40 citations for an "encyclopedia" in 25 years do not instill confidence.
Source 2 (Sangha;2015) and 3 (Kaur;2021) are published by Lulu.com and Notion Press both of which are self-publishing platforms!
Source 4 is a travel-blog from Times of India, a grossly poor source, and contains gems like "Tourists and pilgrims have discovered that the air of this ancient peak amps up the process of ageing!" and "[Mount Kailas] is the point where heaven meets earth. The Google Maps vouch for the validity of this fact."
Source 5 (Rangaswamy;1958) is decent but too old.
Source 6 (Wisdom Library;??) is a random website.
Source 8 (New Indian Express;2022) might be a generic RS but not in the field of art history! Use peer-reviewed scholarship!
Source 9 (News24; 2023) is some shady news website reporting about a podcast where people claimed to have met "nine-foot-tall transcendental entities" (!) at Mount Kailash!
Source 10 (Nalangula;2022) is a one-page "research proposal" that claims the body of an epical character to have been preserved at Mount Kailash!
Source 11 (Allen; 1978) is decent.
Source 12 (Bora; 2020) is published by the college where he teaches and is (practically) self-published.

This article, as it stands, is about a dozen bargepoles away from meeting GA and there is little point in not quick-failing this nomination. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.