Talk:Sarama

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Sarama followed the tracks of the thieves and helped god Indra recover them. "the god Indra"?

   Sarama is described to have found for the fire-god Agni the milk of the cattle... Very poor prose

   By finding the cattle for the Angirasas, she is interpreted to have helped them to supply for themselves milk and butter for sacrifice. again poor grammar.

   Sarama Deva-shuni ("bitch of the dogs") is regarded the authoress of her speech in this hymn., better to use "author", authoress is archaic.

   Brief allusions to Sarama in rest of the hymns like in a hymn by Parashara Shaktya. Very poor prose.

   and repeats that a conversation took place between Sarama and the Panis.

   OK, please take this away and get it copy-edited so that it it is "reasonably good prose". The WP:Guild of Copyeditors may be able to help. This should not have been nominated in this rather bad state.

   THe WP:LEAD should fully summarise the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   "By the path of truth", she found the cows., needs explanation.

   Sarvanukaramani of Katyayana also mentions about Panis' offer to Sarama and her refusal., needs explanation.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Another poor nomination. Please read Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Articles that do not meet these criteria should not be nominated here. Fail GA nomination. If you have other sub-standard nominations in the queue, please remove them and get the prose sorted out. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sarama/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AGK [•] 14:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 28, 2011, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Prose is poor; cf Talk:Sarama/GA1

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

I don't think much has improved since the last GA.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. AGK [•] 14:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)