Talk:Kanhopatra/GA1

GA Review

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

First Pass

Thank you for wanting to get this article to GA. The subject is interesting and the treatment quite thorough, so I think it definitely has a shot. Although this article is very capable of being a GA, however, it will need some work to make the cut, IMO.

There are 3 problems that appear consistently through the article.

First, there a lot -- A LOT -- of copy-editing nits. One of the most obvious is the lack of 'articles' -- like the, an, and a. She spent [the] rest of her life singing and dancing... She gained [the] respect of the people, etc.

Some sentences are overly complicated. Finally, Shama apologised to Sadashiva and decided to present Kanhopatra before him, but Kanhopatra escaped to Pandharpur in disguise of a maid, with the help of her aged Varkari maid Hausa. Shama tried to convince him that he was the father of Kanhopatra and thus should spare them, but Sadashiva did not buy her claim, the torment continued and Shama's wealth slowly depleted. Though legend says Kanhopatra (her soul) merged with the central image of Vithoba in form of marriage—something she longed for and was denied in her life[n 2] or simply, she died at the feet of the Vithoba image, other theories suggest possible suicide or homicide for rebelliousness.

There are phrases that are fine in casual speech, but need refinement. Sadashiva did not buy her claim.

There are sentences that are suggestive of a meaning, but do not explicitly have a clear meaning: She disgusts the society. She talks of voluptuous thoughts of others. As the "champion of the low", she refers to Krishna as her mother.

So copy editing is Numero Uno.

With your copyediting, the problem may be over. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Second: This is supposedly the biography of a real person, so the use of the word 'legends' is disconcerting. I assume that the word is meant to refer to various accounts from local traditions, and I suggest that the words 'stories' or 'traditional accounts' would provide a better context for this biography. I think it would be useful to make some clear reference to the fact that her history has been the subject of storytelling and that it is hard to separate fact and fiction.

I agree, 'stories' or 'traditional accounts' are better, Where can the "her history has been the subject of storytelling and that it is hard to separate fact and fiction." be put? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

A few changes

I've made a few edits for style and clarity. I've also noted to or three facts that I think can and should have citations. More later. --Nemonoman (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Third: References. It looks like about 70% are to Marathi-language sources, so I'm hoping someone who speaks the language can verify. Some of the facts asserted seem to require additional citations.

I'm going to take a stab at some copy editing, probably in the next day or so. In the meantime, I invite active editors to have a go before I make a mess of things. I'll be adding some fact tags so editors can see if sources for some statements can be found. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Fact tags fixed, references were already in place but at end of para/2-liners. About Marathi references, they mostly come from Marathi newspapers/magazines and the Pandharpur temple official site. If you want to verify certain facts on a sample basis, I can point the sentences in the references and then you can use Marathi to English converter or request a Marathi editor to translate. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Requested

I have requested comments from the four projects that claim an interest in this article. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization: God vs god

I'll be looking into other GA and Featured articles to get a perspective of best practice in the capitalization of God vs god in similar articles. Knowing Wikipedia, I doubt that there is consistency. I don't know if practices differ in Hinduism articles vs those of other religions, and if there is information to be had on the matter, please speak up. Or if there is an MOS entry on this, I'd be glad to know it. Once we determine G v g, we'll edit for consistency. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

God-god usage is consistent. G/g are used for diff purposes. God is used for monotheistic God / general concept of God. god is used to denote a god in a pantheon. English usage, not wiki-policy. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Currrent Status

Unless I hear some reasonable criticism to the contrary, I think this article is ready to be passed as a GA. I'll do a final evaluation on Monday 19 Oct. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Findings

GA Criteria

• Well-written:

the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]

My assessment Clearly meets this criterion

• Factually accurate and verifiable:

it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2] and

it contains no original research.

My assessment Passes this criterion, particularly after recent edits.

• Broad in its coverage:

it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and

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

My assessment The article topic is a well-known folk hero, not generally the subject of scholarly biography. The main editor has done a good job of sifting through the information to create a reasonable and solid article filled with verifiable facts.

• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

My assessment Pass.

• Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]

My assessment Clearly meets this criterion. Recent spate of edits have been copy-edits have been touch-ups of an already high-quality article.

• Illustrated, if possible, by images:

images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

My assessment Considering the topic, this criteria has been met. One might wish to see pictures of the actual samadhi, or the miracle tree being worshipped by pilgrims, but you can't always get what you want. I'm giving this criteria a PASS, but I hope that future editors will augment the images.

'Personal note' I'm sorry that other editors from interested projects have not felt inspired to review and critique the article, but I feel confident that my assessements would withstand most scrutiny.

Overall Assessment PASS.

I tip my Wiki Hat to Redtigerxyz, who shepherded this article into GA form. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Pass. About the images, it is not possible to photograph the samadhi as photography is prohibited in the temple grounds. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)