Talk:Padma (Vishnu)/GA1

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

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 01:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Hello. I am afraid this is going to be a quick fail, per GAFAIL #1 and #2.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Lead does not appropriately summarize the article and introduces concepts it does not elaborate on in the prose. Also, there is some peacock phrasing throughout the article, such as "The pure and unsullied lotus".
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * I would not consider wisdomlib a reliable source.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * There is a clear copyright violation if I am not mistaken — report.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Considering how significant this is in Hinduism, the article is too short in its current form to cover all major aspects.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Slightly hagiographic phrasing.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The copyright infringement itself makes this a quick fail, but there are other significant prose issues as well which realistically cannot be fixed during a good article review. — The Most Comfortable Chair 01:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The copyright infringement itself makes this a quick fail, but there are other significant prose issues as well which realistically cannot be fixed during a good article review. — The Most Comfortable Chair 01:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The copyright infringement itself makes this a quick fail, but there are other significant prose issues as well which realistically cannot be fixed during a good article review. — The Most Comfortable Chair 01:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)