Talk:Sharabha/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 15:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Philosophy[edit]

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to whether it is GA quality.

GA Checklist[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Prose is still the article's weak point but it is much better and GA quality

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. 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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Well done and thank you for your contributions. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 15:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

There is a one sentence paragraph (stub) at the end of the lead. This should be expanded or combined with another paragraph. Stub paragraphs are frowned upon.

The para merged. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution and iconography[edit]

Watch the tense sometimes present other times past tense.

Present tense decided. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The writing is awkward in this section. Here's an example:

"The epic also includes Sharabha in the list of edible animals - the mrigajatis- the animal group of antelope, deer, hare, bear, ruru deer, sambar, gayal, boar, and buffalo - which was offered as part of food at dinner to guests."

This sentense is a bit confusing. The Sharabha was offered to guests for dinner? Also the phrase, "...which was offered as part of food at dinner to guests" is a bit convoluted. I would recomment rewriting: "...which was served to dinner guests."

Tough served is right, the food is considered to be an offering to the guests, which are equated to gods in Hindu tradition. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In defining the ecological theme in Hindu medicine related to jungle and the aroma of meats, Sharabha has also been listed among the deer natives of Kashmir, Nepal, and Sikkim. However, the features explained are of an eight legged animal of the size of a camel with huge horns and conjectured as a large Himalayan goat."

Here is another example. It's not clear what the subject of the sentence is. I think you are trying to say that the Sharabha has been likened to other deer natives of Kashmir, Nepal, and Sikkim when discussing Hindu medicine. But I don't really understand the reference to aroma meats. Also using "features" as a noun is awkward. What features are you referring to? Finally it's conjected to be a large Himalayan goat or looks similar to a large Himalayan goat, or acts like a large Himalayan goat? It's not clear.

Rewrote with more detail. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These sentences are examples of prose issues. I'll continue reviewing the article. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 16:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Shiva's incarnation section there is the term, "...which exposes the gory blood-letting aspect." What gory blood-letting aspect? Is this something familiar to adherents of Hinduism? It isn't discussed in the article so I'm a bit confused by the reference here.

Remove the phrase. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In the Sritattvanidhi, the depiction prescribed for Sharabeshwaramurti is of thirty arms...." I rewrote this portion of the sentence in the third paragraph, see if it fits your intentions.

Added more detail. Reworded. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It is said that the sectarian aspect got highlighted during their reign." Watch weasel wording in this sentence. Who said it?

Reworded. Ref says it. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is another stub paragraph at the end of this section.

It is kept separate, as not same idea as any other para. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made some proe edits in this section but there is more work to be done.

Pause review[edit]

At this point I'm going to pause the review and offer some comments. I have read through the article completely and while the information is solid and the references are credible, the writing is not up to par with the GA Criteria. I feel like the writing improves in the In Buddhist scriptures and As emblem sections but the first two sections (which are the majority of the conent) are too rough at this point. I believe in giving time for editors to work on the article so I won't quick fail it, but I would recommend having someone comfortable with prose and grammar do a copy edit. I also refer you to User:Tony1/How to improve your writing, which is a little too thorough for GA standards but is still a good guide. You may want to also consider ending this review and posting the article at WP:PR to get more concentrated suggestions on prose. If you choose this course just drop me a line when the article is relisted and I'll happily review it. I'll hold the article for a week pending work and then if the prose issues are satisfied I'll continue the review. Please send me a note on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 16:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have requested User talk:Dr. Blofeld with the copy edit. I could not add any rplies a earlier since I was away on tour. Thanks for the pause.--Nvvchar (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've given this a copyedit, its not bad at all. I've removed some awkaward or confusing phrases or reworded them. This could still probably do with another pair of eyes by a copyeditor to ensure I didn't miss something.

~~:Last paragraph. This appears as contradictory to me.~~

Gandaberunda (Gun-daa-bhae-rundaa, from Kannada) is the emblem of the Government of Karnataka. It is an Indian mythological bird, depicted with two heads, and believed to possess magnificent strength. The interpretation provided for adopting Ganduberunda as the emblem, is that Shiva – the best friend of Vishnu – took the mythical animal form of Sharabha, with his wings identified with goddesses Durga and Kali. Sharabha hugged Narasimha and pacified him. In this process, Narasimha (Vishnu) emerged in the form of Gandaberunda. The two fought for eighteen days which resulted in Vishnu regaining control over his fierce nature. The fight ended with Sharabha tearing the two-headed bird. Vishnu attained his peaceful image and Shiva came back to his normal form. The emblem, as evolved, shows a red maned yellow lion elephant Sharabha

This seems very confusing to what was said earlier in the article. Shiva being the best friend of Vishnu. Also it somewhat seems like it is struggling to explain something which perhaps belongs much earlier in the article. I believe the emblem section should only brifely put it in its context.There is too much narrataive. Please move this detailed interpretation to where Gandaberunda is mentioned earlier in the article. Then in the final paragraph you should cite it in context but not in detail. The emblem section should specifically discuss the emblems with only a brief context not a detailed narrative if you understand what I mean. Also "shows a red maned yellow lion elephant Sharabha" is poor. How can it be red maned but yellow? perhaps The emblem depicts Sharabha as a red and yellow lion-elephant.? I can see what you mean by the logo image but it needed rewording.. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily removed the section completely. Will rewrite the section and add it in Vaishnavite views.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's better. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continue review[edit]

Excellent work and a speedy addition of a copy editor has helped.
I worked on the tense of the In Maharbharta section. Watch for consistent use of tense (past, present, present progressive, etc).
I note a new section, "In Vaishnavite views". Is this the only planned new section or will there be more?

It is not a new section. You have seen a version, attacked by an anon who repeatedly removes references, the infobox image and some paras and adds unreferenced WP:OR. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any explanation for why Sharabha is described so differently in the various Hindu traditions? Is this common among Hindu deities?

Yes. There are numerous forms and descriptions of most Hindu deities. For example, see iconography sections of Ganesha (and his iconographic forms in Sritattvanidhi) and Varahi. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead seems a little light given the length of the article. Does it summarize all the points brought up in the article? If so then it's fine, if not then you may want to consider expanding.

Will rewrite the section. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments and for clarifying things for me. I apologize for being away from the review for a few days. I just got two foster boys in my home and it's been all-consuming. When you feel the article is ready please poke me on my talk page and I'll finalize the review. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 23:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few lines in the lead. --Nvvchar (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the article again and feel as though it meets the GA Criteria. I still feel that the prose is a little rough but it is significantly improved. The article is correctly formatted, the content is comprehensive, the refs are credible and the images are topical and accurately tagged. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 15:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]