Talk:Deogarh, Uttar Pradesh/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:07, 20 March 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):

   Section heading Topology, presumably you meant to use Etymology

• Changed

1. ''However, it is also a general terminology used for many villages and towns in India to describe a “House of God” — Not good English - how about The word is widely used as a place name throughout India to describe a "House of God" — On looking at the reference, this is not what is said in the book. It says "There are many places named 'Deogarh' ('fort of the gods'). Fortifications which encompass temples are certainly not rare, and 'Deograh' may thus have become a popular designation for villages in the vicinity of temples within fort-walls."

• Changed

1. Geography: The fort of Deogarh is located on a gentle slope, not very distinct from its surrounding valley. — very poor English

• Changed

1. History: Deogarh’s strategic location on the ancient route to the Deccan made it a historically important place — from where to the Deccan?

• Changed by talk

But still not answered Deogarh’s strategic location on the ancient route to the Deccan Plateau made it a historically important place. The ancient route from where to the Deccan?

• • Deccan comprises over eight Indian states and encompasses a wide range of habitats, covering most of central and southern India.. The exact route therefore cannot be stated. Hence, I propose to change the sentence to “Deogarh’s strategic location in central India made it a historically important place”.
    • OK.

1. But the present village’s history has not been examined at depth — don't start sentences, paragraphs, even, with "but".

• Changed

1. The earliest history of Deogarh is the history of architectural evolution traced to the ancient Gupta period, which flourished between the 4th and 6th centuries in Northern India. — a few paragraphs earlier the article just says 6th century for the period. Consistency.

• Corrected. Addtional reference added to Vishnu image

1. It was the period when Brahminical, Buddhist and Jainism activities flourished.'' — shouldn't that be just Jain when used like this?

• Yes, done

1. If you are using phrases such as It was said, you need to say who said it.

• Chnaged as needed

1. ''sculptural arts attained its peak — their not its

Changed

1. Monuments: ''The Deogarh monuments could be categorized on the basis of their location as, the valley temples and the fort temples. — could be said? By whom?

• Changed

1. The “Gupta Temple’, so named by archaeologist Cunnigham, first discovered by Captain Charles Strahan, is dedicated to god Vishnu. When was it discovered?

• Changed

1. Archaeologists have inferred it as the earliest known Panchayatana temple in North India. — have inferred that it is

• Changed

1. It was subsequently named as Dashavatara Mandir or Dashavatara Temple and also as Sagar Marh because the temple depicts ten incarnations of Vishnu. By whom?

• Changed

1. now the shikhara is curtailed and part of it has disappeared. What happened? Did it fall down, was it destroyed?, or is it just erosion?

• Changed

1. ''The temple is set on a high plinth and has a basement porch. Plinth? Are you sure that is the correct word to sue.

8Changed as suggested by talk

1. The other three walls depict carved panels related to facets of Vishnu. So where is the first wall discussed?

• Changed

1. The theoretical conclusion ? What does this mean?

• Changed

1. This has been justified on the basis of the sensuous and graceful modelling of the figurines but with clothes shown draped in an exclusive fashion. — rewrite for clarity

Chnaged by talk

1. Ornamentation with jewellery adds to the beauty of the image. That is an opinion. Attribute it.

• Deleted

1. Worship at some of the Jain temples are held even today. Please rewrite

• Done

1. :I made few minor copy-edits, but frankly the prose throughout is so poor that the article completely fails the "reasonably well written" standard. Please enlist the help of a copy-editor to go through this line by line. The WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors may be able to help.

• Help of WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors sought and talk has done the editing and I have complied with all his suggestions.

1. The examples cited above are the most glaring. Every section needs a lot of work.

• Corrected by talk

1. The article is poorly organised, has one sentence paragraphs and sections and the lead does not adequately summarise. Please read WP:MOS and WP:LEAD.

• Added more text in the lead

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The first reference that I checked, ref #4 does not support the statement as noted above

• Page number of the reference changed to 103.

1. The references are poorly organised, ref#1, cites the book directly, then it is just summarised with the page number. The book should be in a works cited section. Please read WP:Citing sources#Footnote system

• Reorganised under Notes and references with a section of External links also

1. ref #33, Google maps, puzzles me - what statement is it supporting?

• Google reference shifted to External links

1. I have placed a number of citation needed tags, also you need to make sure that all quotes and opinions are referenced.

• I have attended to all the tags

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Whilst the temples are obviously the main feature of the village there is no information about the village itself, demographics, industry, agricultural, etc.

• Deograh is small farming village. I have now added, under geography section, a subsection on Deogarh village and also a seperate section on Demographics. I have made repeated efforts from all known web and book sources to find info on agricuture, irrigation etc. However, could not find more than what is added now.
  • OK, if you find more you can add it later. I certainly couldn't find anything online.

1. There are several lengthy passages about arts styles, etc. which do not seem to be directly connected with the subject.

   Right the main problem as is said below that this is really an article about the fort and temples, not the village. So I think it might be best to change the name of the article to Deogarh Hillfort, Uttar Pradesh, and reorganise slightly. What do you think? The village is obviously small and there will be little to write about.

• • In the DYK hook, Dashavatara Temple was used with dismabugation to Deogarh, Uttar Pradesh. I have no problem with changing it to any name that is acceptable to you.
    • I don't think that is necessary now.

1. One other point, the 'Access section, is too much like something that would be on Wikitravel and it is a very close paraphrase of [1]. I think basic details of location are sufficien, Deograh is a village, some 23 kilometres (14 mi) from the district headquarters of Lalitpur and 123 kilometres (76 mi) from Jhansi. BTW, I corrected the geo coordinates which were wrong. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and we don't need to give complete directions, details of trains, etc., the infobox and the geo coords are enough.

• Done now.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   As far as I can tell. There are many instances, I have tagged the most obvious, where weasel words are used.

• Tags have been attended

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

2. 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):

   I am not sure that all of the images in the image gallery " illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." The captions could be improved to convey more information

• Image captions have been improved
  • I have made more additions to the captions of imgs. I hope they are acceptable.

1. Consider using less images in the article, some are not of very good quality.

• Many images have been deleted

1. Image licensing seem to be OK

2. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Poorly written, many weasel words, too many images, captions in the image gallery need more to adequately explain their significance. the article gives little information about the village, just the temples. On hold for seven days. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• The article has been fully edited by talk of the editors guild and his report is in the talk page. I have comlied with all his observations also. If there are still some observations left out, please let me know so that I can attend to them. Thanks for the review. --Nvvchar (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I await your final decision on my replies given above now to make further changes as required. Thanks.--Nvvchar (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

1. OK, I think that the artcile is sufficiently improved to merit GA status. If more information on the village, e.g. schools, agriculture comes to light then it can be added. Thanks for all for your hard work. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Mmm I'm not sure there is enough information about the village itself to make this a GA. A good article about a settlement as opposed to an archaeologicial site or temple is supposed to be well balanced with a comprehensive overivew of all the main topics. I would probably not have nominated this particular article.... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 01:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed review. I will be able to attend to most of the review comments within the time frame of 7 days. I have requested User:Dr. Blofeld for copy editing. However, in respect of adding more information on the Deograh town, I would need some more time to find suitable and acceptable references. I, therefore, request you to hold the review process for two weeks from today. Thanks.--Nvvchar (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)