Talk:Ayudhapurusha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Hinduism / Mythology / Swaminarayan / Shaktism (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Hindu mythology (marked as Mid-importance).
 

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ayudhapurusha/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 15:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I am starting a review of this article

Review discussion[edit]

I noticed that there are only about 20 cites for the article. Taking the second paragraph in the Textual descriptions section as an example, there is an approx 200 word paragraph with wide-ranging topics with just one cite (at the end). I understand that the one cite may be applicable to the entire paragraph, but either way, what do you think about adding a few more cites? Since it looks like you have about 5 really solid references, this could presumable be to one of them, possibly repeating the same on that is at the end. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

About the second paragraph in the Textual descriptions, the full para is on one topic Chakra. There are other references available for the Chakra as ayudhapurusha topic, but most of them reference Rao, which is like a bible of Indian iconography IMO and say the same thing. So I did not add them. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
My main thought is that it looks a little light on cites overall, and my main question was asking what you think about adding a few more (presumably to the references that are already in the article). I don't think that this is a sufficient issue to stop it from passing GA. I just picked that one paragraph as an example. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

GA criteria final checklist[edit]

Well-written

  • Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable

  • Meets this criteria. It looks a little sparse on cite, but it appears that that is because they are given for entire paragraphs or sections. North8000 (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

  • Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

  • Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

  • Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

  • Meets this criteria. Has 4 images; no non-free images so no article-specific use rationales are required. North8000 (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Result[edit]

Congratulations. This article passes as a Wikipedia Good article. Nice work! North8000 (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations. This article has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article[edit]

(This is "duplicate" here for when the review is no longer transcluded)

Congratulations. This article has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. Nice work! North8000 (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:North800. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)