Talk:Anuradhapura Kingdom/GA1

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

Hello. Overall this article is very good. I am dividing my concerns up per good article criteria: With the above issues, I am placing the article on hold. Martin Raybourne (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Prose
 * Overall the prose seems satisfactory. Ideas were expressed clearly and succintly. I will run through and double check for grammar/spelling issues.
 * For a relatively short article, the latter part of the first paragraph of the lead seems to go into excessive detail about the impact of Buddhism.
 * How is it now? I have removed some information from there that seemed to be not really necessary. But Buddhism is pretty much synonymous with the kingdom, as the article shows :) ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * References
 * On first glance, refs appear fine. All online sources are to reliable publications.
 * Since I am unfamiliar with some of the publishers, can you tell me more about the following?
 * Ratna Publishers, M. D. Gunasena and Company, Sridevi Printers
 * Coverage
 * Judging this article on other GA and FA empire/civ articles, there don't appear to be any gaps in coverage.
 * Neutrality and stability
 * There is no evidence of any edit wars or substantial change in content in the article history; article appears stable, and no glaring POV issues leap out.
 * Images
 * File:Sanghamitta.jpg and File:Buddha tooth pilgrims.jpg both have the same issues; the author and source are given as the uploader, but he or she is not the original artist and source; the location and original artist should be mentioned here. Also, explanation should be given (in the permission field) as to why the source the image is derived from is public domain. I'm also unsure that the licenses are valid, but I am checking on that.
 * Both removed, since the paintings were created 1930-1940, making it a borderline case on the 70 years margin. Since we can't be sure it's before 1939, I'm removing those. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 02:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Kahavanu o.jpg the source mentions nothing about freely licensing the image, appears to be a copyright violation.
 * Removed.
 * File:Sigiriya ladies 01.jpg same PD issue possible as with the other wall paintings.
 * Ok, I contacted an experienced user (User:Elcobbola) and he basically agreed with me. In short, you need to strip out all the author licensing information (because that's not germane for Wikipedia/Wikimedia purposes) and provide justification as to why they are public domain, then tag them as such; the best example I could find on short notice was File:1099jerusalem.jpg, but that gives you a rough idea. Martin Raybourne (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I've discussed with a commons user on IRC, who thinks that PD-Art may not be appropriate, and also said there may be problems with 3D. I have images that I have taken myself; I will find one and upload it. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 02:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ All requested improvements made, I think. Anything else? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 05:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll read through it again and hopefully get back to you today. Martin Raybourne (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review :) I'll get working on the article soon. About the publishers:
 * M. D. Gunasena is one of the oldest and most well known publishing firms in Sri Lanka. Their website is here.
 * Ratna (actual spelling is Rathna - I will correct it in the article) is also a leading publisher in the country. &  both mention Gunasena and Rathna.
 * Sridevi is an Indian publisher, so I don't know much about that. I'll see what I can find. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 04:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've mixed up there. It's actually a Sri Lankan publisher, but not a large one. Not many online sources on that, but &  mention some books published by them. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 05:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, the refs look good at a glance, but I'm not the best judge of foreign presses :) With the images and other concerns raised addressed, I will pass. Good work! Martin Raybourne (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)