Talk:Revanta/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Revanta/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of June 1, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Pass (balanced)
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Pass (increase references scope)
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Pass (for a small topic)
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass (alternative points of view and quotes will improve article)
 * 5. Article stability? Pass (no edit wars recorded)
 * 6. Images?: Pass (for a small topic passable but additional images are welcomed)

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. It appears this article to the subject it covers provides sufficient information. Using furhter sources to provide a wider perspective is welcomed, but does not necessitates failing under any of the above criteria. Additional illustrations are welcomed. Wikidās-ॐ 11:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Congratulations to the contributors. However, it seems the reviewers missed something. The first sentence in Origins is garbled. I can't edit it because I can't guess what the correct form should hav been. Moreover, if the name occurs in the Rig-Veda, it can't be borrowed from Avestan. Rather, the Vedic and Iranian forms derive from a common source. The section also fails to mention the Vedic deity Mitra, the counterpart of Mithra. For these reasons, I think the article fails to clear criteria 1 and 2. I don't want to hurt people, so I am making this comment without logging in. I feel the GA status is not deserved as of now. Hope the editors will improve it.