Talk:Munneswaram temple/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –SpacemanSpiff 10:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments: I think the article is in pretty good shape overall; I have a few suggestions:

1. Can the layout be changed to have the history section moved up to the top and the layout bit to just before the festivals section?

 DoneTaprobanus (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Along with the above change, I think some sort of explanation of the etymology will be in order (by moving a rewritten form of "The presiding deity is called Sri Munnainathar ("Lord of antiquity") and the goddess is called Sri Vativampika Devi ("goddess of beautiful form")" to the history section.)

 Done

1. A bit of a read through to remove some extra articles and economize on words (e.g. "situated in the Munneswaram village, which was the center of the spiritual and religious".)

 Done

1. I also suggest rearranging the images so that they don't bleed into the next section.

Let me know what you think. cheers. –SpacemanSpiff 04:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

 DoneTaprobanus (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've made some edits to the article and have also added a few {{explain}} tags. Can you address those comments? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 DoneTaprobanus (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Explanations

Munneswaram pattuva was a older divison of the country no longer used also, I have no idae as to whether these villages are still extant as the whole area economy changed from that of village paddy cultivation to coconut planatation leaving only few villages intact such as Maradankulama and Udappu that are associated with the Temple. Taprobanus (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Final comment: Have added a citation tag to the name bit in the history section, once that's done, we can complete the review. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 02:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have it for name not for etymology, will look into Bastin book. Thanks for all your help. Taprobanus (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Taprobanus (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Review

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 17, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass, although it could do with a couple more images, esp of the Buddhist temples

Generally good articles, could do with a couple more images. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— —SpacemanSpiff 03:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)