Talk:Transcendental Meditation/GA1

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

Reviewer: Articleye (talk · contribs) 04:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Suggestion to postpone GA review
Sorry Olive, I was unaware of your plans to submit this for GA review and I'd like to suggest that this review be postponed as the article is not ready. As you know the content here consists of the lead sections of its "child" articles. A while ago I placed a Lead Rewrite tag on the TM movement article and the improvements to the lead are still underway and under discussion. As soon as those changes and discussions are complete then I plan to bring forward those changes to this article as agreed in prior talk page discussion. The current TM movement section in this article, is not a full summary of the child article and has some undue weight issues as well. Again, sorry for this mix up but I think its best to postpone and start another GA review later. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. Another editor feels the refs could be worked on, too, and with that in mind I delisted.(olive (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC))
 * I think that's best. Another thing that needs work is the section on TM Research. The lead for the child article TM Research has had significant changes in recent weeks that haven't been carried forward here including the removal of this sentence: Research on the Transcendental Meditation technique has been recognized as playing a significant role in the history of mind-body medicine, and helpful in the creation of a new field of neuroscience. which gave undue weight to facts not widely reported. -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 18:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Good to have this feedback. Thanks.(olive (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC))
 * It looks as if the review will continue anyway, so we can make the changes later or even now I suppose. Sorry, I should have left you a note on your talk page before I asked for the review to see if you or anyone else had things to clean up. I have a few refs to standardize, too. I'll try and do them in the next few days. (olive (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC))
 * Hi! I would love to help improve this article. It seems like it was once nominated for good article but did not make it since it wasn't quite there yet. I know this conversation is old, but I see that the article is still B-class. Curious to see if there's anything specific I can get started with. Whitestar12 (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)