Talk:Jagannath/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 15:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC) This looks like a fascinating article, with a lot of work having gone into it, so I'm happy to give it a GA review. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is often clumsy, while the article's structure is messy. It could really do with a good, thorough copy edit to enhance clarification.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead does not summarize the rest of the article accurately, requiring a good copy edit and rewrite.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Some sentences do not carry references.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	While some good references are used, I do not think that it is properly comprehensive in its use of academic sources (i.e. from anthropology, religious studies, history and archaeology), while many other statements throughout the text are un-referenced.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Large chunks are unreferenced, so might constitute original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Way too much detail in certain sections, such as the "Epigraphic evidence of Jagannath and the timeline"
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Sorry to be the bringer of bad news, but this is a fail, although a lot of work has clearly gone into it. I'd recommend sending it to peer review in the hope that you can find a really good copy editor who call pull it into shaoe. Good luck in future ventures though! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]