Talk:Chandragupta Maurya/GA3

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Johannes Schade (talk · contribs) 15:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome
Dear I will be your reviewer for this, the third GA nomination of the article Chandragupta Maurya. I see you nominated the article on 31 July 2020. It is a shame you had to wait so long. I see that you are an extremely experienced wikipedian, whereas I am almost a novice. It is an honour to help you. I see the article is rated B at present. I applied the Rater script to your article, which calls ORES which rates your article "B or higher" with a confidence of 96.6%. This sounds all very positive. I know nothing about Indian History and have the advantages and shortcomings of a fresh look. I start reading now. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

First observations
I have read the article and I start to see what problems there are and why the article has twice failed GA. I find it difficult to read. There is this man Bhadrabahu who appears out of nothing and is mentioned quite a few times. He needs to be introduced in a proper way. The structure seems not to be entirely chronological. Strict chronology in the body as in the lead would be desirable but perhaps there are major obstacles making this impossible. I could of course limit myself to fixing the form of the article the quite frequent grammatical problems and and so forth. However, I feel that the real problems are deeper seated. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear It is more than a week since I started the review. I heard nothing from you. I suppose you are very busy in real life. It could also be that, after a wait of 3 months, you have lost interest in this your GA nomination. Could you let me know? Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I fail this nomination for lack of response by the nominator.Johannes Schade (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear I have just become aware that this article was proposed for a GA.  Although you failed it for lack of response from the nominator, there are many other reasons for failing it.  It is not straightforward about the sources it is using.  A few I have just noticed are much older than the year to which they are being cited.  I will make some more observations by listing them in a section below (when I find time).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)