Talk:Kamadhenu/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposed merger from Surabhi

Done by suggested. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kamadhenu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   I find the prose in the first section on epithets to be a little disjointed. I'd prefer to see these ideas grouped into a well-structured paragraph or two. In general the text has many small paragraphs that would form a more cohesive narrative if they were merged together and reorganized into broader, more inclusive themes.

The first para talks about the proper names of Kamadhenu and the second about the Kamadhenu as an epithet. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Overall, this article could benefit from a copy-edit for greater clarity in the phrasing and structure. For example, in the iconography section, the sentence that begins "In relation to the deity's iconography, she denotes the Brahminical aspect..." is unclear and needs to be rephrased so we can tell what (dogs or deity) symbolizes the non-Brahminical aspect.
  • It has undergone a copyedit by the WP:GOCE. Please point out any other sentences--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• This piece should be read through and rewritten to be accessible to readers who are unfamiliar with Hinduism. All Hindu concepts and personages need to be better introduced, as in the discussion about the cow Nandini.
  • I try to reduce or explain the jargon as much as possible. Please enumerate the jargon that troubles you. I will add a brief description.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep the focus of each section limited to the theme of the section; move extraneous material to its own section and develop it further if it is worth including.
• Maybe the organizational issues in this article could be fixed by reorganizing it something along the lines of the Shashthi article, with a section on "Textual references" including subsections on birth, children, abodes and other textual references, and a section on "Iconography and symbolism" with a subsection on "Wealth and protection of the Brahmin".
  • Actually, I thought about this alternative, but the legends in "Wealth and protection of the Brahmin" should go in "Textual references" again, resulting in a huge "Textual references" section and a short "Iconography and symbolism" section, which is undesirable IMO. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The lead should be revised and expanded to touch on all the themes discussed in the article. The final sentence should either be incorporated into the preceding paragraph or a new expanded paragraph.

Done.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• This article's linking needs to be standardized. Each linked term should be linked once in the lead and once in the body of the article - the first time it is used.

Done.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   The formatting of the references sometimes varies from one citation to the next (for example, authors' names as Last, First vs First Last). The refs need to be revised so they are consistent throughout. I'd also like to see the URLs archived (especially for the Sacred Text Archive... Google books doesn't need archiving). In templates the fields would be archiveurl= and archivedate=. It's not a must for GA but given how extensively they are cited here, it would ensure people interested in following those links to learn more will be able to access that information in the future regardless of whether or not the original links go dead.

Sacred Text Archive are available in book format. Actually it is a website that publishes PD books. All references in Last, First or First format where author does not have a last name. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   This article could benefit from a section discussing how this goddess is worshiped.

As an individual goddess, she is not worshipped. I can add that somewhere if you suggest with a reference. But as she is the generic sacred cow, worship of any sacred cow is worship of Kamadhenu, however I do not have a scholarly reference for this statement and it could be regarded as WP:OR in wiki terms. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of this information would significantly clarify the nature of this goddess and her role in the experience of Hindu faith for casual readers of the article. I would try to find a reference but it isn't possible right now with prior commitments. I'll leave you as much time as you need to track down the support for these points. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

1. B. Focused:

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

5. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

1. I will begin reviewing this article over the next few days. Looks good! -- Lemurbaby (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2011 (Uhttps://kahoot.com/blog/2020/09/14/disney-collections-on-kahoot-academy/