Talk:Dhumavati/GA1

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Dhumavati (Sanskrit: धूमावती, Dhūmāvatī, literally "the smoky one") is one of the Mahavidyas, ten Tantric goddesses and a fearsome aspect of Devi, the Hindu Divine Mother. This is rather clumsy, how about "Dhumavati (Sanskrit: धूमावती, Dhūmāvatī, literally "the smoky one") is one of the ten Mahavidyas (Tantric goddesses) and a fearsome aspect of Devi, the Hindu Divine Mother." ✅
 * ... often depicted astride a horseless chariot ... "... often depicted astride a horseless chariot ..." "on" is better than "astride" here. ✅
 * Dhumavati is said to manifest at the time of cosmic dissolution and "the Void" that exists before creation and after dissolution A bit clumsy "at the time of cosmic dissolution and "the Void"" Can you rephrase this, the conjunction of "cosmic dissolution" and "the Void" is confusing.
 * OK, I read Frawley and found the quote by Ganapati Muni which explains this, so added that to the origin section. Also changed "at the time of cosmic dissolution and "the Void" that exists " to at the time of cosmic dissolution and is "the Void" that exists " This makes it clear.
 * Looking through the lead and the rest of the article I find that nearly every sentence is badly written, with poor grammar and a lack of clarity. Please get someone else to copy-edit this. You can find tips for the kind of style to approach at User:Tony1/How to improve your writing and the subpages there.
 * I have made some copy-edits in the lead but frankly it is not the job of the reviewer to completely rewrite an article in plain, clear English. That should be done before the article is nominated.


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All online references check out. The article is adequately referenced to reliable sources
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article is broad and well organised.
 * 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):
 * Correctly tagged and captioned adequately
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This is an interesting article, but the prose is very poor and not of Good Article standard: see Good article criterion 1. As mentioned above copy-editing should be done before nominating articles at WP:GAN. I shall place this on hold for seven days. If substantial progress is not made in that time, I will fail it. But you can renominate when it is ready. As the review queue is currently quite short, I won't take l;ong to get a new review. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I think that this is in good shape now, so I am happy to list this as a Good Article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting article, but the prose is very poor and not of Good Article standard: see Good article criterion 1. As mentioned above copy-editing should be done before nominating articles at WP:GAN. I shall place this on hold for seven days. If substantial progress is not made in that time, I will fail it. But you can renominate when it is ready. As the review queue is currently quite short, I won't take l;ong to get a new review. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I think that this is in good shape now, so I am happy to list this as a Good Article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)