Talk:Ahura Mazda/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Redtigerxyz  Talk 14:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * File:Naqsh i Rustam. Investiture d'Ardashir 1.jpg: Please correct the image description on the image page and preferably use information. The image description (the original was modified by an user) claims that the image does not depict Ahura Mazda.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * File:Naqsh i Rustam. Investiture d'Ardashir 1.jpg: Please correct the image description on the image page and preferably use information. The image description (the original was modified by an user) claims that the image does not depict Ahura Mazda.
 * File:Naqsh i Rustam. Investiture d'Ardashir 1.jpg: Please correct the image description on the image page and preferably use information. The image description (the original was modified by an user) claims that the image does not depict Ahura Mazda.
 * File:Naqsh i Rustam. Investiture d'Ardashir 1.jpg: Please correct the image description on the image page and preferably use information. The image description (the original was modified by an user) claims that the image does not depict Ahura Mazda.




 * Lead:
 * Can "Old Iranian religion" be linked?




 * "Images of Ahura Mazda began in the Parthian period, but were stopped and replaced with stone carved figures in the Sassanid period."


 * ✅ What's wrong with it?


 * Jargon is a big issue in this article.
 * explain jargon like Frashokereti, Amesha Spentas, Frātadāra, xvarənah with a short summary like  asha (truth)




 * What are "seven creations"?
 * explain roles of other deities like Mithra, Anahita etc. like "god of light _______ "
 * Add dates to Behistun Inscription,  Parthian period, Zoraster etc.


 * ✅ There is no date for the life of Zoroaster, the Behistun inscription except that it was written by Darius during his reign, and what dates in the Parthian period. Very little is known about the Parthian period, so exact dates are hard to locate.
 * Give approx (circa) dates. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nomenclature: para 1 and para 3 need refs, else can be treated as WP:OR


 * ✅ Nope, it has multiple references to support that claim. It is not OR.


 * Faravahar seems to be related with Ahura Mazda. The commons category Ahura Mazda has images of Faravahar in it. Why is it not discussed in the article? Is the winged symbol with a male figure = Faravahar?


 * ✅ It's not related to it.


 * Italic all text names
 * "Previously, the winged symbol with a male figure who was formerly regarded by European scholars Ahura Mazda has been shown to represent the royal xvarənah. However, it was customary for every emperor from Cyrus till Darius III to have an empty chariot drawn by white horses to accompany the Persian army on battles." The context of this para is unclear. Is the empty chariot = Ahura Mazda?




 * Can a section about the iconography of Ahura Mazda (especially more info on worship images) be written?


 * ❌ Barely anything is known on the iconography. Whatever is known is written in the current article.


 * Nomenclature should also discuss the other names of Ahura Mazda, which are pointed out in the lead.




 * The article switches from past to present and vice versa. Please go through the article once again to rectify this. There are some typos, cumbersome constructions and improper grammar usages. It needs a through copyedit.


 * ❌ Could you give some examples?


 * "Through most of Darius' reign and till Artaxerxes II, Ahura Mazda is invoked alone as the deity of Zoroastrianism. Under the reign of Artaxerxes II, royal inscriptions stopped the sole invocation of Ahura Mazda and began" -> was invoked. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How is Xwrmztʔ related to Ahura Mazda




 * What was Spenta Mainyu's role before Haug's explanation?


 * ✅ Further, in Haug's scheme Angra Mainyu was now not Ahura Mazda's binary opposite, but—like Spenta Mainyu—an emanation of Him. That sentence states that.
 * Like Angra Mainyu is evil spirit, what is Spenta Mainyu exactly? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Missing page numbers in ref 9, 10, 11 (complete range is missing), 12.
 * ✅ You added ref 9 and 10, how ironic. 11 and 12 are not missing pages. Please look again.
 * Sorry, my mistake. I copy-pasted it with the image, but ref 11 now 13 still needs the complete range of pages (not 182ff). -- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Is Ahura Mazda male (Ahura Mazda remained a dignified male figure) or female ("Mazda's binary opposite, but Her subordinate")?




 * Did you intend this to be in a note " For a scholastic review of the theological developments in Indian Zoroastrianism, particularly with respect to the devaluation of Angra Mainyu to a position where the (epitome of) pure evil became viewed as a creation of Mazda (and so compromised their figure of pure good), see"



RESULT: GA FAIL. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Why a fail? All issues were fixed in less than an hour. This article should have been put on hold. Would you please continue the nomination, or shall I go to WP:GAR warrior  4321   22:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is the discretion of the reviewer if the article is put on GA hold or failed. I choose to fail the article if it fails two criteria. You have done a good job in referencing. You may have observed that I was editing the article to fix typos and copyediting. There are copyediting issues like "Although Ormuzd is freed from the world of darkness his "sons" often called his garments or weapons remain." (missing comma), "This may be in part [ ] Mani was born in the greatly Zoroastrian Parthian Empire." (missing words), "However another reason for why this may be is that in Manicheism the religions of Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Buddhism were in fact deviations of the true religion that Mani taught and in a way they were the same religion, hence making it easier to identify the cosmological figures of Mani with the cosmological figures of Zoroastrianism." (too cumbersome) I suggest you re-read the whole article and do a copyedit on your own or approach WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests for a copyedit. A still needs to be resolved. You may go to WP:GAR now or renominate the article after addressing all issues. -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 03:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but to fail an article that could have been fixed within a week (the recommended time given for an On Hold) seems a little harsh. After all, reviewing good article nominations is about improving the encyclopedia, not getting articles out of the queue. warrior  4321   04:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The decision lies with the reviewer. I considered that the referencing issues and copyedit to be major issues, but the referencing issue was settled every quickly, which I did not anticipate. Most authors need time to search references, but you had the resources to quickly provide references, which is good. In normal circumstances (The experience with other editors), it takes more than a week to consider this. Lesson learnt: Some editors are more diligent more than others. I will give at least 3 days unofficial on hold period in the future. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! That's all I ask in the future. warrior  4321   14:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that you said you failed it because it failed two criteria. It didn't though. There never was any OR, you stated para 2 was OR, yet it had 5 references. All citations were present, the 3 references I added beside heretic were extra, as the reference for the entire paragraph covered it. Only the prose needs a little work, and failed. That's 1 criteria, not two. warrior  4321   05:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Paras 1 and 3 (not para 2, which was referenced) were unreferenced + tags (criterion 2) and prose (criterion 1). Instead of further discussing this, why don't you go for reassessment or fix the remaining issues and renominate? Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 06:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)