Talk:Bahubali/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 19:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Dealing with the simple issues first:

Images
File:भरत-बाहुबली युद्ध.jpg could be problematic in theory. The photo is out of copyright, and I suspect India's generous freedom of panorama would cover it, but I'd DEFINITELY have that one checked over and debated before going to FAC, as otherwise the image check there could be difficult.

File:Karkala gomateshwara.jpg would be better replaced with an image that doesn't have the distracting pole in front of it; there's no reason every statue has to be depicted from the front. This is a minor issue in some ways, but image choice does help make your article look more professional.

Everything else passes without a qualm. ✅

Stable
Check. ✅

References/Verifiable
Looks decently sourced. One reference is cited, but not used:

Sangave, Vilas Adinath (2001), Facets of Jainology: Selected Research Papers on Jain Society, Religion, and Culture, Mumbai: Popular Prakashan, ISBN 978-81-7154-839-2

It should probably be deleted. If it is used, please make sure you cite the facts from it.

Neutral/Broadness/Clearly written
This is definitely written from a Jain perspective, but that's probably justified. Are there other perspectives of note? E.g. have Hindu scholars talked about him? If so, that needs dealt with.

There are a few minor issues with the writing:

From the lead: "After his year of meditation, Bahubali attained omniscience (Kevala Jnana)." - It feels a little odd to casually say he attained omniscience in the lead to an article; one could easily fix this with a minor rewrite, though, to make it clear we're still using Jain holy texts. How about:

After this year of meditation, Bahubali is said to have attained omniscience (Kevala Jnana).

That said, do NOT let me get away with any suggestions not being enforced on any other religion. My unfamiliarity with Jainism should not result in its claims being treated differently than, say, Christian claims about holy men would be.

The section "Legends" might run into problems if you're taking this to FA, but given it's entitled "Legends", I think we can accept that it's been contextualised.

The section "Statues" could probably use a transition from the list of statues to the discussion of each statue. It's not immediately clear that the same statures are being discussed. Either incorporating the facts in the list to the descriptions or just stating that the next part will be looking at them in order would help.

The section "Artipuras" is confusing. It has different dimensions than the 13-foot statue being excavated that was discussed previously; it has almost no detail, unlike every other statue, and it needs expansion.

The section "Idols" needs an introductory sentence or two before the gallery.

"In literature" is too short, and needs expanded.

This isn't a bad start. A little work and this will pass easily. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Improvements
Thank you for reviewing. I have tried to fix some of the issues raised by you. —Nimit (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Right. Looks like it's just introducing the idols section and expanding the literary one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess it's ready, please have a look. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  08:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this passes now. "Pictured below are some of the images depiciting Bahubali that are located at various places in India" and "These statues will be briefly discussed in order now." are a bit blunt of statements; poke at them a bit more for tone before going to FAC, but this has reached the level of passing. Great work! Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)