Talk:Vaikuntha Chaturmurti/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ugog Nizdast (talk · contribs) 18:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Nominator: Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) 14:44, 08 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Looks pretty good, I'll do a thorough check in the coming few days and post my comments below -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Comments have been answered, article passes. 09:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Section "Iconography"
  • "...mentions that four goddesses Lakshmi, Kirti, Jaya and Maya as counterparts of Vaikuntha Chaturmurti." wait, this isn't trying to say that they are the four female attendants, right? (then the wording is wrong). Y

The text does not call them wives or attendants; but female counterparts. It is unclear if the text means shaktis.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• • In this entire statement: "He wears rich clothes (generally in sculpture, only a dhoti)...the yagnopavita (sacred thread).", because of that statement in brackets making an exception, does the rest refer to how it is portrayed besides in sculpture? Y -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Rest are the common features. In sculpture ... is additional info. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Ugog Nizdast, Thanks for initiating the review.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Development and symbolism"
  • The second para here is confusing. It begins with "...not a single four-faced Vaikuntha Chaturmurti is found till day." and ends with "Though popular in Kashmir, the icon is rarely seen outside of it". It could do with rewording, especially clarifying whether the four-faced version is found and if it's only in Kashmir. Y

Made some edits. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• • "In this format, while the body and legs were depicted as strong and sturdy, but it was shown inflated with the prana tradition with bow arched eyebrows and lotus shaped eyes, typically an Indian concept.", I didn't understand this part, could you reword or clarify? Y

Hopefully better. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• • "The human face is Vasudeva, who symbolizes strength/power (bala); the lion is Samkarshana, who is knowledge/wisdom (jnana) personified;", since I'm not familiar with the subject, I'm just wondering whether Samkarshana (Balaram/Lion part) represents strength instead (vice versa)? Y -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Verified Gail. Looks good.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, done and checked the remaining criteria. Sources are all good. Some more...

• Criteria 2B: Article is well-sourced but these two statements could do with inline citations: "...where the fourth head was dropped by sculptors just for sake of convenience." and "The iconography of Vaikuntha Chaturmurti was influenced by Gandhara architectural...particularly those made in Kashmir.". Y
• 1B: Compared to the rest of the article's size, I think the lead section could be fleshed out a little more...perhaps two-three sentences? Y

I think that's about it then, the review is almost over. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The article passes. As always, great work. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Ugog Nizdast. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)