Ayurveda edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's had a lot of work done to try and fix the problems, and I think it's time to figure out how much is left. Presume the goal is GA for now; any comments on how to reach that would be appreciated.
Thanks, 86.** IP (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. I think this needs a lot more work before it would pass WP:GAN, here are some suggestions for improvement.
- A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several GAs at Category:GA-Class Alternative medicine articles that may be useful models
- There are three disambiuguation links here that need to be fixed.
- There are two dead external links and some others that may be problematic here
- The lead has a major cleanup banner {{lead}}, which is enough by itself to disqualify it for peer review (I will still make some comments)
- The lead needs to follow WP:LEAD and be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. The limit is four paragraphs in the lead, but this has five now
- Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. Unless they are for direct quotes or extraodinary claims, the lead does not have to have refs either, since the refs should presumably all be in the body of the article.
- My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
- Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs as they are choppy and interrupt the narrative flow. WHere possible combine them with others, or perhaps expand them
- Watch WP:OVERLINKING - just in the lead AYUSH and Government of India are linked at least twice each.
- WP:MOS says to spell out per cent (not use %)
- Needs a ref The Charaka Samhita text is arguably the principal classic reference. It gives emphasis to the triune nature of each person: body care, mental regulation, and spiritual/consciousness refinement.
- Nothing notable in History since about 1815???
- I would avoid bullet point lists as much as possible. Straight prose is usually better
- Spell out abbreviations on first use (like ENT). Once something is spelled out, probably do not need to repeat it
- Parts of Approach seem more like History
- Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)