Talk:Kataragama temple/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments
I've now had a quick scan through this article. It appears to be comprehensive, well referenced and generally of GA-quality so I will now undertake a more detailed review. This is not yet my final decision; but I will not be "quick failing" this article.Pyrotec (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * History -
 * This is well referenced via citations. However, the list of references in the Cited literature section is listed in random order: they don't appear to be in date sequence, calling order or surname order. As Harvard style citations are being used, the Cited Literature should be sequenced by surname-order. Pyrotec (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)✅
 * Ref 8 was written by Wright, Micheal, who appears to work for The Nation, but the web publisher is The Buddhist Channel.✅


 * Legends -
 * Ref 17 (Womak 2005, p. 126), is a book and has a publisher - which is not quoted. Its there on Google books, so its easy to find, so it should be given in the cited literature.✅
 * Ref 18 & 19 (Clothey, 1978), is a book and has a publisher - which is not quoted. It should be given in the cited literature.
 * Ref 20 (Gupta 2010, p. 167), is a book and has a publisher - which is not quoted. Its there on Google books, so its easy to find, so it should be given in the cited literature.
 * Ref 22 has two different spellings. Wanasundara is used in the Notes, but Wanasundera is used in the cited literature section.✅

...Stopping for now. To be continued later. Pyrotec (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ref 28 (Kapferer 1997, p. 51), is a book and has a publisher - which is not quoted. It should be given in the cited literature.✅
 * Ref 32 & 33 (Clothey 1978), is a book and has a publisher - which is not quoted. It should be given in the cited literature.✅


 * Temple layout -
 * This looks OK.


 * Murukan and Kataragamadevio cults -
 * Ref 36 (Holt, John 1991), is a book and has a publisher - which is not quoted. It should be given in the cited literature. ✅
 * Ref 37 (Clothey 1978), is a book and has a publisher - which is not quoted. It should be given in the cited literature.✅


 * Cited literature -


 * As Harvard style citations are being used, the Cited Literature should be sequenced by surname-order. ✅
 * The following citation is given, "Wirz, Paul (1966), Kataragama:The holiest place in Ceylon, Lake house publishing house"; however associated the World Cat link gives the authors as: Paul Wirz; Doris Berta Pralle.
 * The copy that I have says, Paul as the author and Doris as the English translator. Kanatonian (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The reference (Clothey 1978) appears to have been mis-cited. The authors are stated on the book's cover to be Fred W. Clothey and A. K. Ramanujan, so it aught to be cited giving credit to both authors; and called up as, e.g., (Clothey & Ramanujan, 1978).✅
 * The reference (Davidson, Linda Kay 2002) appears to have been mis-cited. The authors are stated on the book's cover to be Linda Kay Davidson and David Martin Gitlitz, so it aught to be cited giving credit to both authors; and called up as, e.g., (Davidson & Gitlitz, 2002).✅
 * The reference Gombrich, Richard 1999) appears to have been mis-cited. The authors are stated on the book's cover to be Richard Francis Gombrich and Gananath Obeyesekere, so it aught to be cited giving credit to both authors; and called up as, e.g., (Gombrich & Obeyesekere, 1999).✅

The main "problems" at this point in the review are relatively simple to fix, they consist of missing publishers, missing second author and a typo on author's name. I'm therefore putting this review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks will follow up. Kanatonian (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA status. Congratulations on producing a fine article.

I suspect that this article has the potential to proceed in due course to being a WP:FAC. If you wish to proceed along that path, I would strongly suggest that the article be submitted to WP:PR first. This topic is not in my "subject area" and therefore I am not in the best position to determine whether the scope of the article would be regarded as being sufficient for FA. Pyrotec (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)