Talk:Kataragama temple/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I've now had a quick scan through this article. It appears to be comprehensive, well referenced and generally of GA-quality so I will now undertake a more detailed review. This is not yet my final decision; but I will not be "quick failing" this article.Pyrotec (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History -

This is well referenced via citations. However, the list of references in the Cited literature section is listed in random order: they don't appear to be in date sequence, calling order or surname order. As Harvard style citations are being used, the Cited Literature should be sequenced by surname-order. Pyrotec (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Done[reply]
Ref 8 was written by Wright, Micheal, who appears to work for The Nation, but the web publisher is The Buddhist Channel. Done

Legends -
Ref 17 (Womak 2005, p. 126), is a book and has a publisher - which is not quoted. Its there on Google books, so its easy to find, so it should be given in the cited literature. Done
Ref 18 & 19 (Clothey, 1978), is a book and has a publisher - which is not quoted. It should be given in the cited literature.
Ref 20 (Gupta 2010, p. 167), is a book and has a publisher - which is not quoted. Its there on Google books, so its easy to find, so it should be given in the cited literature.
Ref 22 has two different spellings. Wanasundara is used in the Notes, but Wanasundera is used in the cited literature section. Done

...Stopping for now. To be continued later. Pyrotec (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 28 (Kapferer 1997, p. 51), is a book and has a publisher - which is not quoted. It should be given in the cited literature. Done
Ref 32 & 33 (Clothey 1978), is a book and has a publisher - which is not quoted. It should be given in the cited literature. Done

Temple layout -

This looks OK.

Murukan and Kataragamadevio cults -

Ref 36 (Holt, John 1991), is a book and has a publisher - which is not quoted. It should be given in the cited literature. Done
Ref 37 (Clothey 1978), is a book and has a publisher - which is not quoted. It should be given in the cited literature. Done

Cited literature -

As Harvard style citations are being used, the Cited Literature should be sequenced by surname-order. Done
The following citation is given, "Wirz, Paul (1966), Kataragama:The holiest place in Ceylon, Lake house publishing house"; however associated the World Cat link gives the authors as: Paul Wirz; Doris Berta Pralle.

The copy that I have says, Paul as the author and Doris as the English translator. Kanatonian (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference (Clothey 1978) appears to have been mis-cited. The authors are stated on the book's cover to be Fred W. Clothey and A. K. Ramanujan, so it aught to be cited giving credit to both authors; and called up as, e.g., (Clothey & Ramanujan, 1978). Done
The reference (Davidson, Linda Kay 2002) appears to have been mis-cited. The authors are stated on the book's cover to be Linda Kay Davidson and David Martin Gitlitz, so it aught to be cited giving credit to both authors; and called up as, e.g., (Davidson & Gitlitz, 2002). Done
The reference Gombrich, Richard 1999) appears to have been mis-cited. The authors are stated on the book's cover to be Richard Francis Gombrich and Gananath Obeyesekere, so it aught to be cited giving credit to both authors; and called up as, e.g., (Gombrich & Obeyesekere, 1999). Done

The main "problems" at this point in the review are relatively simple to fix, they consist of missing publishers, missing second author and a typo on author's name. I'm therefore putting this review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks will follow up. Kanatonian (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A comprehensive, well-referenced, well-illustrated article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

C. No original research:
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:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA status. Congratulations on producing a fine article.

I suspect that this article has the potential to proceed in due course to being a WP:FAC. If you wish to proceed along that path, I would strongly suggest that the article be submitted to WP:PR first. This topic is not in my "subject area" and therefore I am not in the best position to determine whether the scope of the article would be regarded as being sufficient for FA. Pyrotec (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]