Talk:Pushpagiri Temple Complex/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TheDragonFire (talk · contribs) 03:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Replaced Karthikeya.Prathyush (talk · contribs) after inactivity. TheDragonFire (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Minimal review by Karthikeya.Prathyush (talk · contribs). TheDragonFire (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think the article is quite good and educative. However, since it seems that it is a GA nominee in archaeology area, it needs more information on the styles of archaeology used in the construction of the temple and the historical background Karthikeya.Prathyush (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Hi, I have edited the article to include more information on the archaeology side with more references citing the temple and its architecture. Could you please review and let me know how you feel about the article now? Thanks, Hnaluru (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC) @Hnaluru:, Thanks for the edit. Would you also be able to elaborate a little on the temples by providing information on each individual temple? Karthikeya.Prathyush (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC) @Karthikeya.Prathyush: As you appear to be a new editor, please ensure that you have read the guide to reviewing good articles, and that you take care to review the article against the good article criteria. If you have any difficulty with this nomination, please approach the help desk. @Hnaluru: Please ensure that as information is added to the article, that you are mindful of the Manual of Style's guideline on embedded lists. The article could also do with quite a bit of copyediting (e.g. Whatever is the legend if is associated). TheDragonFire (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC) @TheDragonFire: I am not new to Wikipedia. I have been an active editor for about 8 years but lost my credentials so had to register again with a new ID. I am talking to Hnaluru to make this article better and had sent him a few emails as well suggesting some changes. Karthikeya.Prathyush (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Hi. Responding to a message left at the help desk. If anyone (nominator or reviewer) wants to ask me for advice on this process or any other help regarding the review feel free to ping me (I will watch for a while anyway). AIRcorn (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC) Thanks @Aircorn: for the help extended. Will approach you if need be.Karthikeya.Prathyush (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Internal Links @Hnaluru: I can see that you have linked some words to internal wiki articles. Could you link them to the correct articles as they seem to exist already. Karthikeya.Prathyush (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

17 April

What has happened to this review? No single communication for over a month. With no changes occurring or planned, the article should have been put on hold or failed. And why are the GA criteria not properly assessed? pinging reviewer and nominator.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham, Aircorn, Karthikeya.Prathyush, TheDragonFire, and Hnaluru: This article looks like it needs some work. There are multiple unsourced sentences and the "Culture" is completely unsourced. I don't know what the status of the review is but if no progress is occurring, this review should be closed and Hnaluru (or another editor) should make sure there is no original research before renominating.--Dom497 (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I was merely offering a neutral helping hand. That still applies, although I see Dragon Fire has taken on the review now so it might not be needed. AIRcorn (talk) 05:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Review by TheDragonFire

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   The article needs extensive copyediting.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The article contains embedded lists that fail the MoS guideline.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   The article contains large sections with no inline citations.

   C. It contains no original research:

   This is difficult to determine due to the lack of inline citations on all the sections that are suspiciously original research.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   There is a copied paragraph from Hnaluru's website, although it is unclear if that's a reverse copy.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   The article needs to be careful to relate Hindu ideology in a slightly less in-universe manner than it currently does.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I am placing this article on hold in order to attract attention from anyone willing to salvage this article. If the nominator, the reviewer, or another interested party have not responded within a week or two, I will fail this nomination. TheDragonFire (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire: Could you please put this article on hold? Due to a personal emergency, I am unable to contribute of late and will be able to do so soon. Hnaluru (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hnaluru: Certainly. There is no rush as long as someone intends to complete this nomination. :) TheDragonFire (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hnaluru: How are you going? TheDragonFire (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

TheDragonFire, it's been another week without a response; Hnaluru's most recent edit is earlier in this thread, and they have been minimally active for quite some time. At this point, the thing to do is probably to fail the nomination. (The review has been open for over four months.) Should Hnaluru be able to address all the issues raised in the review, they can then renominate the article for GAN. You can offer to take on the new nomination if you'd like, though it's certainly not required. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Failing now. TheDragonFire (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)