Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Shiva/1

Shiva edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: GA status retained following recent editing AustralianRupert (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited infromation have found its place in the article. Some of the cites do not adhere to wikipedia policies. For eg [1][2] -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Capankajsmilyo: cleaned up.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, I found the article without its GA icon; an IP had removed it some months ago, and I restored it. Capankajsmilyo, have the reference issues been dealt with to your satisfaction? Are there other issues that would warrant the continuation of this reassessment? (There's one cite book with two "year" parameters—the odd one is 1920-1927—and a couple of different citations that use the same name, but these should be fairly easy to fix and by themselves don't rise to the level of requiring a delisting.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigerxyz did the cleanup, but more unsourced statements have swept in. So for the moment, I would like to maintain my GA demotion request till it gets all cleaned up. Further I'll suggest to protect the article for its prevention from further erosion. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capankajsmilyo, I have done a cleanup again. Please point out any specific pending issues.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigerxyz, the last two entries in the Sources section are out of alphabetical order, but more important, while they seem to be by the same author with slightly different honorifics, and the ISBN is the same, the book title and publisher are different, which definitely shouldn't be the case when identical ISBNs are used. Also, neither is actually used in the References section. If you do retain them, can you please standardize the entries as well as alphabetize them? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, the problem was result of a vandalism. I have cleaned up further and added references. I still do have to reformat the references. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capankajsmilyo, BlueMoonset: I have done 1 more round of cleanup. Please check. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capankajsmilyo, The summary opening sentence (ambivalent nature) is supported by the referenced paras ahead of it. The Shambhu sentence is supported by the ref; moved the ref.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset, Redtigerxyz, and Capankajsmilyo: G'day, from what I can tell, it seems that Redtigerxyz has responded to the issues above and they appear to have been rectified. As such, noting that the review is now about six months old, I think this review is ready for closure as "keep". Before I close it, though, are there any objections to this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to this being closed as "keep". Thanks for going over some of these; it's been awfully quiet in the community reassessment space of late. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to this being closed as "keep". -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]