Talk:Trijata/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AmritasyaPutra (talk · contribs) 14:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. 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) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Simple clear language used.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	As per discussion, the doubts in WP:LEAD are addressed.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	It contains a list of all references presented in accordance with the layout style guideline, there are no dead links either.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	There are no opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements.	Pass
(c) (original research)	It contains no original research.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Yes, it coverts all major aspects.	Pass
(b) (focused)	As far as GA goes I think it is fairly focused.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Nothing incriminating, no suggestive wording in my view.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Stable. No ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Yes, the images are tagged with their copyright status.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Yes, images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	After discussed changes and per above comments I find it good against GA standard

Discussion

I have started the review. It does not have any cleanup banners and does not contain any seemingly copyright infringements, I will continue with the six good article criteria. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 14:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Initial feedback on the lead:

• Can you correct the Sanskrit spelling to त्रिजटा.

Corrected. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Could you clarify "In the original Ramayana" in the lead? (Probably adding "by Valmiki" as done in the body?)

Removed word "original". Ramayana is introduced in the lead. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Could you clarify "Southeast Asian versions" (Probably substituting with "in the Thai Ramakien" as done in the body?)

Southeast Asian versions include Thai, Malay, Indonesian versions. Sentence is referenced in "Trijata and Sita" para 1. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz: The lead has "Southeast Asian versions often depict her as the wife of Rama's monkey general Hanuman...", it the body it is present in "In the Thai Ramakien, Hanuman helps...". Am I mistaken? --AmritasyaPutra^T 12:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

AmritasyaPutra, The last para of "After the war" talks about Thai, Malay and Javanese traditions.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, right! All my queries are answered, I will continue with the review. --AmritasyaPutra^T 12:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The article looks well-written, neutral. I found a few reference which did not actually support the text but maybe I am not reading the translation correctly. I will continue the review after your response to the above feedback. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

AmritasyaPutra, Thanks for starting the review. I may be a busy in real life over the next few days and may take taime to reply.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pass, AmritasyaPutra. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)