Jump to content

Talk:Agam Kuan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Agam Kuan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 12:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • Where is it referenced that it is "the most important archaeological site in Patna, India"? Ref 1 simply says it's "considered as Patna's most quaint monument".
    • Modified the sentence
  • No need to rebold the article title in the second sentence.
    • My mistake. Corrected
  • Be consistent with the italics around the quote marks of "unfathomable well", compare the usage in the lead to the usage in the main body.
    • Done
  • "and is line with brick" do you mean "lined"?
    • Corrected
  • "Within the precincts of the Agam Kuan" do you mean Near the Agam Kuan"?
    • Corrected to "adjacent"
  • What relevance does the temple have to the Agam Kuan? Why is it mentioned at all, let alone comprise the whole of the second para of the lead?
    • The Archeeological Survey of India has identified this temple along with the Agam Kuan as part of the archaeological site. A. Cunningham also refers to two statues found in the well which were once installed at the gateway to the temple. People who come to see the temple visit the well and vice versa.
  • Now I am confused. The infobox refers to this Agam Kuan as a neighbourhood, while the the lead states that it is simply a well. But the rest of the article seems to imply that Agam Kuan refers to an area, which includes a water well, a temple and some other bits and pieces, can you explain?
    • Changed to "Archaeological"
  • "worshiped" for British English (like "neigbourhood") we would spell that "worshipped".
    • I thought British usage was also permitted as we use that in India. Corrected as suggested
  • You have more about the location of Agam Kuna in the lead than in the Location section itself. This is the wrong way round.
    • Shifted to location section
  • First sentence of "History and legend" has too many clauses (count the commas).
    • Modified
  • "The well is stated to have been used to torture convicts by throwing them into the fire that used to emanate from the well" but the lead states it was a water well, not a fiery torture well...
    • Corrected to "well"
  • "The well is presently... " see WP:ASOF.
    • Changed
  • " a heavy log of timber that was lost in the sea was located in the well by saint." grammar, needs copyediting.
    • Corrected
  • "Another plausible subterranean link is mooted as with the Ganges river" I don't understand this.
    • Corrected
  • "But this well of torture...." why "But"?
    • Removed "but"
  • No need to overlink Jain.
    • Delinked
  • "The well's is still considered " -> The well is....
    • Corrected
  • " and a site for" used for.
    • Corrected
  • "but it is never used for drinking" do you mean for the consumption of intoxicating liquid?
    • Modified
  • Can you explain who A. Cunningham was?
    • Yes, done.

That's enough for now, plenty to do, on hold for a few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further

  • Not sure "unusual" is neutral in tone. In what sense is it unusual?
    • Changed to "ancient well with historical links"
  • "curing smallpox..." clearly this is just a myth, it should be made clear that this water does not cure smallpox or chicken pox, it's just a "belief".
    • changed to "belief"
  • "log of timber" logs are usually made of timber, so "of timber" is not required.
    • Done
  • "Another subterranean link" what exactly does this mean?
    • Changed to "Geo-hydrological link"
  • "An unusual scene here is the presence of a lady priest" do you mean something like "As of 2015, the temple features a female priest"?
    • The unusual aspect is that in all temples in India the priests are male. But here the priest is a lady
  • "engineer cum archaeologist" needs hyphenation.
    • Done.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Are there any more issues which need to be addressed?--Nvvchar. 18:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Rambling Man:The last correction which you had suggested was missed by me. This has been corrected to "A strange scene here is the presence of a female priest". As I did not hear from you I thought I had clarify here. I hope with this all cnages needed have been made. Pl see and reply.--Nvvchar. 12:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, I'm having a hard time trying to pass this as a GA. The English is still poor, repetitive and ungrammatical. Unless you can find a sympathetic natural English-speaking copyeditor, I'm going to have to fail it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2015

I agree with The Rambling Man, while this is a useful guide to the well, the prose is not clear enough for GA. Sometimes it is difficult to parse the meaning, so I'm not sure a copyedit by itself would work. I think it needs the topic to be researched and written up in clear prose. The article also need more work in general to meet all the GA criteria. The lead doesn't meet WP:Lead as it doesn't summarise the article. There are very short sections. There is a photo of statues found near Agam Kuan in 1895, but this is not explained in the text body. This is a basic article, informative to a degree, but perhaps not quite enough information to inform the general reader per the "broad coverage" criteria. The Architecture section does not provide encyclopedic information about the architecture, merely a basic description - perhaps Architecture is an inappropriate title? There is a fair amount of work to be done here to meet all the GA criteria. There has been some progress over the past month, so there has been some benefit from this review; I feel this GAN has reached its conclusion. The article now needs a sustained period of consolidation, perhaps getting more editors involved in building it up, and then nominating again when the work has been done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @The Rambling Man: I have removed the img in question as its whereabouts is not traced. I have done lot of google search but not found any more text to add except one of Archaeology Department of Bihar which I have added now. I have also added some more text under the "Features" (earlier Architecture section).--Nvvchar. 12:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with SilkTork's assessment; the prose, even after the recent copyedit, is not clear enough to meet GA standards. I, too, had to work to understand the meaning of certain phrases and sentences, which should not be an issue in an actual GA, and some are simply not well written. In addition to the WP:LEAD issues, the numbers given there don't match the numbers in the body of the article. The Rambling Man, I believe SilkTork is right: the article needs significant further work, and the nomination should be closed as unsuccessful at this time. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks all, closed as unsuccessful at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agam Kuan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agam Kuan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legend vs historical

[edit]

is this historical or legendary, the article states its legendary, if sources verify for instance ashoka's edict and chinese buddhist travelers accounts, then it must be historical. is it legendary based on archaeology because none of the discussion has been made in the article how its legendary it infact tries to prove its historical, regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dangling ref

[edit]

I have located a dangling ref and hidden it, replacing each with a citation needed tag. This has been done because we have a reference pointing to a sources that is not recorded in the article. Please feel free to contact me if you need assistance fixing this. - Aussie Article Writer (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Agam_Kuan&oldid=1198152148"