User:Jack1231344/Kaṇāda/KianML Peer Review

General info
Jack1231344
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Jack1231344/Kaṇāda
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Kaṇāda

Evaluate the drafted changes
The content of the draft all seems extremely relevant and integral to the topic. The section it is revision; observations and theories is much less in depth than this draft. It seems to be all up to date, as much of this is historical knowledge. I wonder if it is necessary to even have an observations and theories section, as the rest of the article also seems to be about Kanada's observations and theories anyway. It might be better to spread out the information through the article.

It seems like the citations aren't set up in the draft, but it will be fixed in the final version.

Change the grammar from "Kaṇāda explores" to "Kaṇāda explored"

Good use of links to relevant articles