Talk:Aryabhata/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: JJ Harrison (talk · contribs) 00:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig link

Please fix dablink. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IAST

caturadhikam śatamaṣṭaguṇam dvāṣaṣṭistathā sahasrāṇām
ayutadvayaviṣkambhasyāsanno vṛttapariṇāhaḥ.
- Please recheck IAST script here! For example त is [t̪] etc. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving comments from Talk:Aryabhata into this review page

For some reason, the reviewer's comments were placed on the article's talk page, rather than in this file where they belong. I'm adding them below, so they are included in the review's records. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be having a go at this over the next few days. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Comments

A first look through on my part shows that there is work to be done before a pass. There are some comments below. I'll have another look once those things have been sorted out. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy Table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead needs expansion. There are some English/grammar problems. Going through Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch will find quite a few sentences that need changing or citing. There lots of unsupported attributions in particular.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Easy to fix. There are a few too many uncited statements at the moment. I've templated a couple, but there are more.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Looked for other copies of the lead image with tineye - none of those can be the original - the resolution is lower.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The article is a little light on images though. See comments below.
	7. Overall assessment.

Written Comments

I'd like to see more pictures. This might be easiest for some of the things in the "Mathematics" section. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Taregna should be wiki linked. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be a small introduction after the "Mathematics" heading. I think "Triangle Area" or similar might be better than "Trigonometry" under that. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it was known or part of the proof, then $1^{3}+2^{3}+\cdots +n^{3}=(1+2+\cdots +n)^{2}$ should be expanded to $1^{3}+2^{3}+\cdots +n^{3}=(1+2+\cdots +n)^{2}={\frac {n^{2}(n+1)^{2}}{2}}$ . JJ Harrison (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few templates where I think a citation would be good or similar. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"may have come to the conclusion that $\pi$ is irrational" under Approximation of π reads like original research. Please cite it or change it. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence in "Aryabhata's work was of great influence in the Indian astronomical tradition and influenced several neighbouring cultures through translations. The Arabic translation during the Islamic Golden Age (c. 820 CE), was particularly influenced." sounds a little POVey, and the second sentence needs rewording, and possibly information about what influence occurred in particular. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's still many uncited statements in this article, so I'm failing the nomination. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]