Talk:Anuradhapura kingdom/GA1

(Redirected from Talk:Anuradhapura Kingdom/GA1)
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Martin Raybourne in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hello. Overall this article is very good. I am dividing my concerns up per good article criteria:

Prose
  • Overall the prose seems satisfactory. Ideas were expressed clearly and succintly. I will run through and double check for grammar/spelling issues.
  • For a relatively short article, the latter part of the first paragraph of the lead seems to go into excessive detail about the impact of Buddhism.
    • How is it now? I have removed some information from there that seemed to be not really necessary. But Buddhism is pretty much synonymous with the kingdom, as the article shows :) ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
References
  • On first glance, refs appear fine. All online sources are to reliable publications.
  • Since I am unfamiliar with some of the publishers, can you tell me more about the following?
    • Ratna Publishers, M. D. Gunasena and Company, Sridevi Printers
Coverage
  • Judging this article on other GA and FA empire/civ articles, there don't appear to be any gaps in coverage.
Neutrality and stability
  • There is no evidence of any edit wars or substantial change in content in the article history; article appears stable, and no glaring POV issues leap out.
Images

With the above issues, I am placing the article on hold. Martin Raybourne (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply


Thanks for the review :) I'll get working on the article soon. About the publishers:

  • M. D. Gunasena is one of the oldest and most well known publishing firms in Sri Lanka. Their website is here.
  • Ratna (actual spelling is Rathna - I will correct it in the article) is also a leading publisher in the country. [2] & [3] both mention Gunasena and Rathna.
  • Sridevi is an Indian publisher, so I don't know much about that. I'll see what I can find. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 04:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Ok, the refs look good at a glance, but I'm not the best judge of foreign presses :) With the images and other concerns raised addressed, I will pass. Good work! Martin Raybourne (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply