Talk:Prithu

censecretated?

In the first paragraph, should the phrase "first censecretated king" actually be "first consecrated king"? Nortonew (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The first sentence of the lead needs to be rewritten; it is too complex and should probably be rewritten into two sentences. The problem lays in that the listing of alternative names breaks up the sentence so the flow is lost. Also, in the main text the sentence "However, The Manu Smriti calls the earth (Prithvi) as Prithu's wife, instead of his daughter, thus was the name Prithvi from her husband's name." doesn't make sense to me. Could you please rewrite it. Otherwise I have done some minor copyediting.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Remeber to use {{cite book}} whenever citing a book. There were three instances that didn't comply, but I have fixed them up.

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:

   Two sentences to fix up and the article will pass. If you have any questions or comments, do not hesitate to state them here. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

   Since the concerns have been addressed, I hereby declare this article Good. Congratulations!Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal from Symbolism section

   I found, as section Prithu#Symbolism's 2011-contributed, citation-free, 2nd & last 'graph (which i've moved to here instead), the following:

Of course, as is universally perceived, man struggles to mold phenomena, which is at odds with his or her belief systems, into a more conforming form. In the case of scholars, such molding is done by careful speculation executed after amassing considerable knowledge of various fields. Also, British agenda has been proven to define scholarly interpretation and translations more than inherent intellect of the scholar himself. As such, interpretations should be taken with a grain of salt or ignored altogether.

   The first two sentences seem to be an assertion that everyone knows that presumptions of objective scholarship, such as the citation-bearing 'graph that preceded it in the accompanying article, are inherently fraudulent. The third is either incoherant, or a claim that a national and/or profession-wide conspiracy is responsible for something -- in the absence of clarity, presumably the 'graph preceding it.

IMO perhaps the whole moved 'graph, but in any case especially the final sentence, would be constructive as part of an essay-tagged page at WP:Why WP is part a futile struggle against the indefinability of the Cosmic Truth. I'm not interested in working on such an essay, but if the 'graph is moved there, i will support its retention there.
--Jerzy•t 10:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Prithu appears from Vena's corpse.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Prithu

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

This 2008 listing contains significant uncited material, breaching GA criteiron 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree and this article is not maintained. will work on it, give me a few days. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Have added references for the unsourced part. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz, the prose quality is now below GA standard. Take the first body paragraph alone: the first sentence is ungrammatical, "a ayonija" is clearly a spelling error, etc. Most of the article also seems to be based on a source (Wilkins) that is not cited. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Airship that the prose needs some work to be at the level needed here. The GA bar for sourcing is not all that high, but I also have reservations about the age and quality of some of the sources used here, and the formatting of the references and bibliography is confused: while that isn't in itself reason to delist, I certainly wouldn't allow it through a GA nomination without fixing those problems. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.