Wikipedia:Peer review/Sanskrit nouns/archive1
- 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 November 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review. Kindly give your valuable opinions on its improvement to FA status.
Thanks, Kris (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. As currently written this is a long way from FA, and not even that close to GA yet.
- Biggest problem with the article reaching FA is a near total lack of references. There are three inline refs, but they are only in the lead - none of the six sections of material have refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
- Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- The lead does not follow WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
- Any chance for an image or two in the article?
- Why are Both devanagari script and IAST transliterations given for the first table, but none of the other tables?
- The I, u , and long vowel stems tables have no explanatory text and should - see WP:PCR
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)