Wikipedia:Peer review/Ra (channeled entity)/archive1

Ra (channeled entity)

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because the page has undergone extensive revisions and any comments would be helpful.

Thanks, NoVomit (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz comments': -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Expand lead
 * "Ra is an alleged extraterrestrial group of entities" is a [[WP:POV|point of a view". Put it something like "According to ...... (fill in the blanks), Ra is an extraterrestrial group of entities"
 * Reference needed: "The questions asked were about very diverse subjects and events;"
 * I am sorry to say I agree with the confused tag on the article, I really could not understand what exactly Ra is/ are? I think all those notes should be put in the main text itself to clarify new concepts "octave of densities","seventh density" etc.
 * Expand the whole article itself to clarify what Ra exactly is. It's nature, appearance etc. Something more about the entity is needed to clarify

Logos5557 responds to comments':
 * Expand lead: can be done by adding some extra words/sentences, however there are plenty of articles which have very short leads like
 * I believe the word "alleged" does provide NPOV. Putting "According to.." before would only make the sentence unnecessarily longer.
 * That sentence can be reformed in a way not to need references.
 * I really do not know what that user could not understand in the article and put the confused tag. Each user might have not understood different points. Therefore, the related wikipedia guideline reads that normally before putting that confused tag, the user should discuss the confusing point in the talk page. Putting all those notes into the main text would make reading difficult, therefore as per explanatory notes are given separately below the main text.
 * Clarifying what Ra exactly is not an easy task as their nature can only be explained by the avaliable material from law of one books, which is not much in quantity. Logos5557 (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Emotional_quotient is NOT the best article to refer to for guidance. Read WP:LEAD. I should have given the link before. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)