Talk:Vikramaditya/GA1

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

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 12:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Introduction and limitations
Before starting this review, I'd like to state that I have little knowledge of Indian history, but I am knowledgeable about Buddhism. I am fascinated by Indian history though, and once started a new article about Buddhist kingship, which also was related to Indian kings. My previous assessments have been well-received, although people generally think my reviews are lengthy.

Overview

 * 1. Prose:
 * No copyright violations.
 * The article has obviously been written by experienced Wikipedia writers. Nevertheless, many sentences are too complex, and need simplifying by breaking them down in several, more readable sentences. Also, some paragraphs still raise questions or are unclear to the uninitiated.
 * There is some in-universe writing: for example, when you are summarizing from legends and writings, this requires present tense per MOS:INUNIVERSE.


 * 2. MOS: In general, article follows the Manual well.
 * 3. References layout: Well done. No dead links either.
 * 4. Reliable sources: Text is well-referenced using peer-reviewed sources.
 * 5. Original research: I don't think there is any original research here.
 * 6. Broadness: seems to cover almost everything. However, the article is not completely clear on what the role of the king is toward Samkhya or Buddhism, even though this article describes him as a patron of both.
 * 7. Focus: article is the appropriate size, and stays focused.
 * 8. Neutral: written neutral.
 * 9. Stable: article is stable.
 * 10-11. Pics: Pics are relevant and tagged, but the picture of the vetala has no professional quality and should probably be removed.

Detailed review per section

 * There are many duplicate wikilinks in the main body of article, that is Shakas, Chandragupta II, Vikrama Samvat, etc. Use this tool to identify them.
 * To be continued. GA Progress below is a rough review, and I may reset some criteria if a detailed review shows the criteria have not been met yet.

I will now wait for your response, after which I will continue the review.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Putting article on hold, because nominator has not responded, as apparently is his habit. --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Failing GA review, nominator has not responded.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)