Talk:Khandoba/GA1

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead should be a summary of the entire article. Therefore, there should be information in the lead that is not in the body of the article and so there is no need for references in the lead unless you are backing up a direct quotation.
 * In the second paragraph of the Legends section, you say " The demon was slaughtered by the gods and finally Khandoba killed the two demons." Can you clarify this, please?  Which demon was slaughtered by the gods?  I thought the only demons that the story was talking about were the two that Khandoba killed...
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * My main issue with this article is with the reference formatting consistency, just as it was with the Putana article. Book references need to be consistently in the split ref format, if that is the one you choose to use; full refs should be organized by author, and I suggest that you use the cite book template; and links should be made through the title of the work, rather than being a bare ref.
 * There are a few spots that need references:
 * The last sentence of the Etymology section.
 * The last bit of the Iconography section.
 * The last sentence of the Wives section
 * The last sentence of the Other associations section.
 * Most of the Twelve temples section.
 * 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:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * reworded the legends sentence.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are refs in the lead as things like "He is the most popular family deity in Maharashtra" need not be repeated again.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed the list, retained some of them, which are named elsewhere in the article with references.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've gone through and struck the items that you've completed. The things that I see as still needed for GA status are the ref formatting and the referencing of the remainder of the temples section. Dana boomer (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * References are available for these temples elsewhere in the article, so their existence can not be questioned and only statements can be challenged need a ref. Will work on citation, sorry forgot that. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The part in the temples section that I'm most concerned about is the description of the Jejuri temple, especially where you start talking about the belief that this is where Khandoba first appeared on earth. This probably needs a citation, if you have one close at hand. Dana boomer (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sentence removed, ref added. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything looks great, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

To my mind Khandoba is another god in the Hindu pantheon like Kali, Ganesh or Vitthal or Balaji. People worshipping on of these gods don't normally have a problem also worshipping the other gods and so calling those worshipping Khandoba as belonging to his cult or sect may not be appropriate. The whole Khandoba article cites references from just one book, just one book ! Makes one wonder how it was ever given a good article status ! 74.9.96.122 (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)