- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article just passed the GA process. Need suggestions for improvements to reach FA status.
- Since the article is about a Hindu deity, some terms may be considered "jargon". I have tried to explain Sanskrit terms in English, wherever possible if more terms need explanation, please list them.
- What more topics should be discussed for comprehensiveness, if the reviewer does not feel the article to be complete.
- Is any re-organization of sections neccessary? Do you feel that the sections are introduced in a proper sequence.
Thanks, Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- The James Hastings work, current ref 2, is a published work and should be formatted as such, not as a website. Note also that this is a reprint of a work originally published in 1925-1935, and might be a bit out of date.
- The Richard Maxwell source is also a book, and should be formatted as such. (current ref 9). In fact, you've done this with a number of works from googlebooks, it looks like. All of them should be formatted as books, not as webpages. Note that I'm not a big fan of using Google books snippets to source articles, as you often times miss the full context when you only use snippets.
- What makes http://www.tukaram.com/pages/introduction.asp#top a reliable source?
- What makes http://www.hampi.in/ a reliable source?
- Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. Will contact you when i am done with referencing issues. Reply to Comments:
- Hastings, and Richard refs are now written using {{citebook}} template.
- About the work being "a bit out of date", I would like to point that authors like Sand[1] summarize theories of other scholars before proposing their own. So the book can never be "out of date" to express the view of it's author.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Google books links are given so that editors can verify the refs, if they want and original book is not available.
Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- http://www.hampi.in/vittala-tem was not actually not used as a ref, but was rather a note or external link, to know more about the temple. Now, the link is removed.
- http://www.tukaram.com/pages/introduction.asp#top is replaced with a RS.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
- I think this is overall pretty well done and fairly close to FAC. Before going to FAC the article needs a copyedit - on of the FA requirements is professional prose and there are several places that need polished, mostly missing articles but also some awkward constructions.
- Have approached Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Per WP:MOS#Images images should all be set to thumb to allow reader preferences to take over - at least one image Image:Purandara.jpg is not set to thumb.
Done --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I found the Etymology and Origins sections similar enough that I wonder if they could be combined. Just a thought and I might be wrong, but they both tend to look at modern theories of origins
- Etymology is about the names and Origins about the origins. Etymology also includes theories about the evolution of the names, some of which overlap with those of the origins of the deity. The layout of the article is inspired by FA Ganesha, the only Hindu deity FA article. Thus my only reference.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I realize Vithoba is known by several different names, but I wonder if it would be possible to pick one name and stick with that for most references to him. SO sentences like Thus, he proposes that the worship of Panduranga may predate the temple itself.[26] can be confusing to the reader who has not heard of Vithoba before and does not realize this is another name for him. Perhaps something like Thus, he proposes that the worship of Vithoba as Panduranga may predate the temple itself.[26] would be clearer?
- I will stick to Vithoba for consistency.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Similarly I agree on the jargon - I like the parenthetical explanations where possible.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)