Talk:Mysore literature in Kannada/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: -SpacemanSpiff 01:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. I'll take a look and note my initial comments over the next few hours. -SpacemanSpiff 01:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably also read the failed FAC review from February 2009. Please read the concluding comments of RegentsPark, LaserBrain, and myself. The issues of synthesis (especially by the exceptional use of Pranesh and Kamath, both little known in the field of Kannada literature) will be a concern for GA candidacy as well. (Who, btw, nominated this for GA? The primary author is user:Dineshkannambadi and I'm not sure if non-significant authors can nominate such an article.) Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see the subpage User:Fowler&fowler/Accuracy_of_sourcing_in_Kannada_literature_in_KM_FAC about accuracy of sourcing in the article. Has the article changed much since March 2009? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I've already read the talk page, and based on the article history, asked this question at WT:GAN -- I was concerned about the major contributors not being involved. -SpacemanSpiff 01:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also read the FAC earlier -- to get upto speed on FA criteria and how articles get promoted or not. -SpacemanSpiff 01:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's fine. (Just wanted to make sure you knew about the article's past, which you obviously do. Also, wanted to make sure that this was not a frivolous GAN.) Good luck with the reviewing. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Preliminary comments

These comments are based on a cursory reading of the article, not a detailed review.

Why the double link to Keladi Nayaka and Keladi in the lead?
"Many of the works...produced some works of merit" in the lead. The two sentences in this are referenced to the same page, of the source, but together they appear to cause more confusion than anything else. It's quite likely that som information is missing in this pair of sentences.
"Secular themes with a wide range of subjects were also written on." This is in addition to the many and some from the above pair of sentences, and referred to multiple sources. It reads like a collection of disconnected statements right now. If all this needs more explanation, it shouldn't belong in the lead as it appears to cause confusion.
The article and title don't appear to match. There are instances where it focuses on Kannada literature in general vs in the Mysore kingdom.

I'll add more later (I have a fair bit on first look), but I hope the nominator can comment on these before we delve in. -SpacemanSpiff 03:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you've noted in your reply to me, it's be best to fail this in the next few days if someone cannot be found to handle the issues noted in the FA review or the issues you've noted. Wizardman 06:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've also posted on WT:INB to see if anyone there would be able to take this up, if I don't hear from anyone by the end of the week, then I'll fail it. -SpacemanSpiff 06:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not very well-versed in the subject, I'll try and see if I can help out. Some comments in response to yours above:

Keladi Nayaka links to the dynasty, while Keladi links to the place.
The references mentioned there are themselves problematic. Shastri (1955) is cited, but not mentioned in the bibliography, so I have no idea which book is being referred to. However, what seems to be suggested is that literature flourished under the Veerashaiva, Vaishnava as well as Jain traditions.
The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article; as such further elaboration of the concepts presented in the lead must be presented in the body of the article. However, the sentences could use some rephrasing and I'll try and do that.
The only instance where the article seems to focus on Kannada literature is in the first sub-section, which merely provides a historical perspective to the development of Kannada literature in the kingdom of Mysore. The subsequent sections deal with the transition and development of Kannada literature from Vijayanagara to the Mysore region.

Also, the references and bibliography do not link to each other, which I'll try and solve using Harvard citation templates. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: The above mentioned points were just first comments to get started, there are quite a lot, especially related to quality of sources and verification of what the sources say. I think using {{Harvnb}} cites can be done at the end after the content is finalized. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 12:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Some minor tweaks required, but good for the most part

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Source verification is difficult, questions regarding references haven't been addressed

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Some areas appear to be OR or synthesis
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The article has the potential to be brought up to GA standards. The main problem identified is around the sourcing of the content, including the reliability of some sources, lack of details of some, and the appearance of synthesis. These issues will have to be addressed before renomination. Part of the problem here was that the nominator was not available to follow through with the review.