Talk:Seema Malaka/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 16:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this one on. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

This article has quite a lot going for it, and clearly meets a number of GA criteria:

• The photographs and images are beautiful and properly sourced. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• All statements made are given a reference. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• The text is clear and concise. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

However — and it is a significant however — I am left uneasy at the quality of the sourcing: the temple's own website, a couple of promotional tourist websites, what looks to be a personal blog, and Google Maps. This is not the stuff that Wikipedia's Reliable Sources are made of. Where are the academic historical texts discussing the temple's development? The newspaper articles on its recent history? The archaeological or architectural reports on it? For an encyclopaedia, these things are vital. (If I may be so bold, I offer one of my own GA-rated contributions, Coldrum Long Barrow, as an example of how to use Reliable Sources to construct an article about a religious/historical monument). It is for these reasons that I believe that the article falls down on "2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources," and "3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I think that it falls down on two counts and that this article does not yet meet GA criteria. However, rather than outright fail it I am going to put this article on hold for a while and ask for a second opinion. Some other editors may disagree with me on the sourcing issue and thus I would like others to either confirm or contest my thoughts before I proceed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I disagree about images. The section Picture gallery contains a seemingly random assortment of images. Such are discouraged by WP:IG, Template:Cleanup-gallery. I think sources are a major issue here. Being so thinly sourced, I wouldn't be surprised if this didn't fly at AfD. Either this topic is not GNG-notable, or this topic is notable but virtually no effort to use existing reliable sources have been taken. This makes me doubt broadness of coverage (GACR 3.) as well. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@AKS.9955: I looked a couple of edits and you eg. added four extra citations to the Construction section without any addition of content. Adding new information based on new references is good. But adding extra citations for something that's already referenced is not a good practice. This is not the point of references. See Wikipedia:Citation overkill. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Finnusertop:. Relax. Did I say I was done? Since Midnightblueowl brought up the subject of references, I am improving it. Once when I am done, I will notify him her. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• "her." Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Ouch!! :-) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• No worries, just beware the perils of androcentrism! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the images are fine, although the last two are very similar. Perhaps getting rid of one of them? As for the sources, they are getting better, but still need work. 3 seem to be from actual newspapers, many of the other sources are vacation or tourist sites, and Google Maps doesn't cut it. If the temple is notable, there should be some literature somewhere besides vacation websites and destination news articles. -Pax Verbum 05:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pax, although both pictures appeared to be similar, they both had differences. But since (and as a neutral reader) you could not tell a difference, there is no point keeping the picture and I have deleted one of it. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Request for second opinion: A request for second opinion has been made on the nomination page by Midnightblueowl in apparent reference to the quality of citations currently being used and whether the reference basis being used for the article in general is sufficient at the present time for GA level peer review. Midnightblueowl is raising a valid issue, and there should be a redoubled search for articles in books, newspapers and journals about the site and its supporting institutions and architects. This is significant since the article in its current form could be criticized by other readers as being somewhat threadbare to appearance both in the actual writing of the short sections and of the very few references that are given. Try to redouble the search for more references and it might help. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I've decided that — having been open for over a week — it is probably time to end this review, and unfortunately, for the reasons above, I will have to fail it. The second opinion provided by Fountains-of-Paris has confirmed many of my initial concerns; this article is just too scanty and uses far too many non-Reliable Sources (visitcolombo.com, the Daily Mail, Lonely Planet, Google Maps, etc). Really, we do need god academic sources; articles and books written by archaeologists, historians, and architectural historians that discuss this religious monument. Accordingly, I would encourage the nominator to keep working on it and to re-nominate it at a later juncture. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Midnightblueowl, firstly I did not know that there is a deadline for GA reviews. Secondly, Fountains-of-Paris had asked for a second opinion and hence its fair that we wait for the second opinion. Lastly, I have not yet reverted on the sources and as you may have noticed that I have added few more sources and also stated above that I will notify once when I am done. Kindly review and advice. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• As to your first point, there is no hard and fast rule with regard to how long an article can be under review for; it is left at the discretion of the reviewer, although seven days is the usual period. As it says at the GAN page, "Review timeframes vary from one nomination to the next, but a responsive nominator and reviewer can complete a review in about seven days. A reviewer may put the review "on hold" for about seven days to allow you time to fix any issues that may arise (reviewers can shorten/extend the time limit if they wish)." I felt that, given that eleven days had passed without significant change to the article, it was probably time to call it a day. On the second point, as I understand it, Fountains-of-Paris was responding to the request for a second opinion that I issued; rather tan calling for a second opinion, they were giving me one. They echoed many of my concerns about the quality of sourcing. However, don't be disheartened by the fact that it was failed at this time; keep working at the article, pay attention to the concerns raised and the recommendations for how the article should be improved, and then re-nominate at a later date. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Midnightblueowl. No, I disagree with you on the seven day deadline / discretion of the reviewer. There are clear guidelines on deadlines and you cannot build pressure on other editors. The quote you presented above does not mention that you can use your own deadline. As a matter of fact, it suggests that you can put it on hold. If you don't have time or the patience, please do not review GA nominations. Second opinion: Fountains-of-Paris had very clearly asked for a second opinion and you have not waited for it. You are actually discouraging and not helping the cause. If you are that impatient, please do not go on reviewing GA nominations. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• I appreciate that you may be upset that your GA nomination was failed, but you are being way out of line here. There really is no need to behave in an aggressive or confrontational manner. Your article was nowhere near GA quality, as I and other editors pointed out to you. I gave you eleven days to make some improvements, and yet no improvement was forthcoming. "Wikipedia:There is no deadline" does not explicitly pertain to WP:GAN. Your insistence that Fountains-of-Paris was the one that asked for a second opinion ignores the fact that it was I who put out that request, to which they then responded. If you really think that I have done such a bad job reviewing the article then you are free to nominate it again and wait for another reviewer to come along; but bear in mind that I have over sixty GANs and 80 Good Articles to my name - I know what I'm talking about, and I really am trying to help with the advice that I have given to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Midnightblueowl, it really does not matter how many GA you have to your credit; you still cannot push people around. And no, I don't think you know what you are talking about. It's just convenient memory for you. You apply different rules for others. For example, at 21:22 on 16 March 2012 GA nomination for Dreamtime (Duerr book) (now page name changed to Dreamtime (book)) was made by you. Review was undertaken by Viriditas who started review on 09 Apr 2012 and your last input in the GA nomination was on 30 Apr 2012 (21 days). The article finally attained GA status on 4 May 2012, 24 days after the review started and almost 50 days after the nomination was made. He kept his patience with you and did not slap a 11 day self-made timeline on your face. When it came to you, others did not push you around and as a result you managed to learn and contribute to so many GAs. Now its your turn to act responsibly and with patience. Treat others the way you were treated. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Midnightblueowl, even though I strongly disagree with your action, I am still stepping back from this discussion as this is not productive. As you had suggested, I will work on improving the references of the article and consider GA review again. Since you are aware about the subject, I will take the liberty of notifying you (upto you to take the review or let someone else handle it). I will again suggest you to be more patient with other editors and review. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• The idea that I have pushed you or anyone else around is ludicrous and baseless. The comparison made between this GAN and that at Dreamtime (book) are highly forced; the improvements needed at the later were minor and mainly of a prose nature, whereas the improvements needed here are major and structural. This conversation, however, is going nowhere, so I agree that it should cease. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oh, and there is nothing on Viriditas' page to indicate that they are male, so perhaps you shouldn't automatically refer to them as "him" as you previously did with me. It's pretty disrespectful. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)