Talk:Jyestha (goddess)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose is very poor throughout. This article needs thorough copy-editing by an uninvolved editor with a good command of written English.

   The organisation is bitty, the whole is not coherent. Please see Shiva for an example of what to aim at.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Those references that I could examine appeared reliable.

   I added two citation needed tags.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Hard to say, but most of the article relies on one source.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The image File:Jyeshtha.jpg could do with a better description, identifying the period of creation and where it was found.

   Likewise File:Sagar mathan.jpg

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article clearly isn't ready for GA status yet. Please get it rewritten in good plain English. See what other sources are out there. GA review is not a substitute for peer review. Please do not nominate at GAN until articles meet the criteria. Failed nomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

   User:Redtigerxyz has asked for expansion of my comment about organisation. The following sentence above about taking a good look at the organisation of the good article Shiva is meant as a pointer to what a good artcile on a deity should look like. Obviously an article on Jyestha is never going to be as large as that on Shiva, but the general layout and sectioning would be a good boilerplate for this article. Hope this helps. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)