Talk:Ayudhapurusha
 | Ayudhapurusha has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 9, 2014. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Ayudhapurusha appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 August 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- 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
editI 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
editWell-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
editCongratulations. 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)