Talk:Lada (mythology)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 04:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. I would also like to mention that I have nominated the articles Inanna, Enlil, Anunnaki, Athena, Jonah, and Pythagoras in this same category and they are all currently awaiting review. I will probably be nominating more articles in the near future. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf: I notice you reverted my edit in which I changed the word "commented" to "comments". Actually, "comments" is correct because one is supposed to use the present-tense when describing an extant writing. One should only use the past tense if the work is no longer extant. Even though Shedden-Ralston lived in the 1800s, since his work still exists, it should be spoken of in the present-tense. The same should also be true for the statement a few paragraphs prior: "For instance, a rector at Cracow University wrote in a postil circa 1405–1412". This should be "writes" not "wrote", assuming that this postil still exists. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for noticing that. I was in the midst of doing some style cleanup and didn't notice that anyone else had edited the page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have read over this article multiple times and checked the edit history and the citations. Overall, it looks like it is up to GA quality, but I do have two concerns:

The second-to-last section entitled "Naming" is rather confusing because you mention that "The names Lada and Lado may be related to the Russian word lad, 'harmony, peace, union'" in the lead, but I think that it might be better if you restated this in the first sentence of the "Naming" section. Right now, as it is, you kind of dive right into the meanings of these words, assuming that the reader remembers that they may be related to Lada's name, but, the first time I read this, I had forgotten and had to go back through the article searching for a place that explained this.
The last section, entitled "In contemporary religion," is only one sentence: "Lada is one of the deities that some adherents of Slavic Native Faith honor with seasonal holidays." This leaves me with the impression that there is probably a great deal more that can be said about this. I think that you should try to expand this section, if possible. I would recommend trying to explain more about what these "seasonal holidays" are and how she is honored with them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input; I've followed the suggestion about repeating the info about the names further down. I've also moved the source on the Slavic Native Faith holidays to "Further reading"; it had only a passing mention of the goddess Lada in a simple list of deities, and I haven't found other sources that examine modern Lada rituals in any depth. Overall, the info seemed to lack sufficient weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that those changes have been made, I think that this article is passes all of the GA criteria, so I will pass it.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Remember that it is recommended that, for every article you nominate for GA, you should try to review at least two others, to keep down the backlog. Right now I am the only one who seems to be actively reviewing articles in the "Philosophy and religion" category and the backlog seems to be growing faster than articles are being reviewed. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]