Talk:Polonnaruwa Vatadage/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello... we'll start the review ASAP :) I want to readthru more thoroughly, and if I see anything sticky, like typos/grammar etc., I will do a ce or two; nothing major, though :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, looking forward to it :) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, we're ready to start... let's just focus on a few things at a time :) For now:

• In the lead, the sentence "Although the actual builder of the structure is uncertain, it is believed to have held an important relic such as the tooth relic of the Buddha for some period.". hmmm... this needs an elaborative rewrite to either clarify how or downplay that the builder would be associated with the identity and/or importance of the relic.

• Reworded. How is it now?

Much clearer :)

• In History, the sentence "If the Polonnaruwa Vatadage is the shrine built by Parakramabahu I, the tooth relic of the Buddha would have been enshrined within it.". Again, elaborate; is that because of the significance of Parakrammy and/or his era to Buddhist culture?

• I'm not sure what you mean. The idea is that Parakramabahu I "...built a circular stone shrine to hold the tooth relic of the Buddha" (History section, 1st paragraph), so if this structure is the Vatadage, it would naturally have held the tooth relic.

You are correct. I overlooked that... grr :)

• The captions for File:Polonnaruwa Vatadage Layout.png and File:Polonnaruwa-temple20.jpg are slightly underdescriptive. Make sure we know specific and positional aspects of what is being seen. :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've made the captions more descriptive. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 06:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Very good! We'll continue tomorrow... Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Next up; in Architecture and stonemasonry, there are several things that need to be fleshed out/mentioned about the symbolism of vatadage architecture, and any new or original features that distinguish P. vatadage. What purpose do moonstones and guardstones, and their quantity and position serve? Why are there x number Buddhas? How long did it take... did craftsmen/slave labor build it...?, etc. Things like that. Take as much time as you'd like; we just kind of need a little more info., within the source material you have or can find :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Moonstones and guardstones were decorational elements, although there is some symbolism connected with the former. I've added a few details regarding this. I had to visit the library to check the others; that's why my response came late. Anyway it seems the numbers or directions of the statues don't seem to have any meaning (at least, no sources mention anything like that). Apparently it was customary to position the main entrance of a monastic building facing north, as is the case here. I guess the secondary entrances were simply placed facing the four directions so that they will be symmetrical, and the statues were placed to face them. I've found some information on how buildings were constructed during that period, and the source, luckily enough, discusses the Vatadage too :) I have added that as well. There's nothing on how long it took though; we're unlikely to find that considering that we don't even know for sure when exactly it was built. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Very good :) It seems to cover pretty much everything now, and we're meeting ga criteria too... so it's a pass. Yay! Really good... and its been nice working with you :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You too :) Thanks very much for the review. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article Polonnaruwa Vatadage passes this review, and has been upgraded to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass