Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vithoba

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008 [1].

Vithoba

Nominator(s): Redtigerxyz ^Talk

Vithoba was here in October, but failed, as I understand it, due to concerns about some references and the prose quality. The article had a copyedit. The disputed references were removed, new ones added. In the process, the improvement of the article was aided by the reviews of wiki-users, which can be read on the article talk. So since the concerns in the earlier FAC are addressed IMO and the talk reviews - weighting the article against FA criteria - taken into consideration, Vithoba is ready to face a FAC again. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig have been checked: Birla Mandir is the only disambig (list) remaining as there is no article on the specific Birla Mandir yet. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the link to the disambiguation page with a redlink. That way, when Birla Mandir, Shahad is created, the link will point to the correct article. Wronkiew (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I support the nomination for FA. Its a well written and well sourced article worthy of FAC. Kudos to Redtiger and Alastair.--Anish (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Disclosure: Anish had left comments on the Talk:Vithoba which helped the article improve. For reference: Talk:Vithoba#Suggested_improvements. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I also reviewed this in great detail on its talk page and my concerns were addressed there, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. For reference: Talk:Vithoba#Ruhrfisch_comments --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I had supported in the earlier nomination as well and was involved to some extent in copy edits and general suggestions at that time. I have read it again and see significant improvement in prose, citations etc.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having faith in the article, this time and last time too. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support A very thorough and well-written article—it meets the highest standard for Wikipedia articles. Priyanath ^talk 02:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, and the review on the talk. For reference: Talk:Vithoba#More_nit-picking (after User:Michael Devore's comments) --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support well done. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great work.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Why are there some internal pointing between sections. I found 2 such instances - As discussed in the devotional works section above, and (see Legend below). Nothing wrong but unusual on WP. --GP Pande 12:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sand concludes, from a version of Pundalik's legend in the Skanda Purana (see Legend below)" When i first read the line, i felt that readers would ask: which legend? So the link. "As discussed in the devotional works section above," The Devotional Works section describes the background of the texts, mentioned in Legends section. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I understood the background behind why it was written so. See if you can remove them by putting a short note/jump link or shortly describing the background in sentence itself (not more than few words). I found one more such link in Legends section. What do you say? Anyways, I support FA status. Really a great work with in depth research gone into this. --GP Pande 18:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Certainly an FA standard article.Pectore^talk 03:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - meets all FA criteria Taprobanus (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Image licenses look fine. The selective color manipulation in File:Palkhi 2008.jpg lowers its encyclopedic value. I recommend converting it to monochrome. The captions in the article for File:Palkhi 2008.jpg and File:Alandi Palki 08.jpg are unverifiable. Wronkiew (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the color manipulation. It is artistic but not encyclopedic. Awadewit (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. For Alandi Palkhi, see Sane, Prajkta (March 2007). "The 'Palkhi' of Alandi to Pandharpur" (PDF). University of New South Wales.. A similar image of the Palkhi is available. As i wrote in the last FAC " Varkaris are known to wear saffron clothes, carry saffron banners and have a saffron Tilak (mark on forehead). The saffron colour is closely related to Hinduism, as a whole. So the picture is not a misrepresentation, in my humble opinion. Notice a varkari is wearing saffron clothes, the saffron banners here. [2] and saffron tilak here [3]." --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thus IMO, the orange colour should be left as it is. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review All images have verifiable licenses, but several need expanded descriptions to allow users to understand what they are.

File:Vithoba Gutenberg.jpg - Is there any more information that can be added to the image description, such as the century the statue was made or the type of art it represents?

I can not add itself about this one as the source (gutenberg) does not say itself. Though the image seems to be of stone.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vithoba-dasavatar.jpg - The description on the image page is insufficient to really determine what the image is.

File:Palkhi 2008.jpg - The description on the image page is insufficient (at least for me).

File:Alandi Palki 08.jpg - The description on the image page is insufficient (at least for me).

Adding these descriptions will be very helpful to readers - thanks! Awadewit (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix it. I am just back from Pandharpur, where Vithoba's chief temple stands. Got some fne photos. But I will need some help to digitally improve some images. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captions added. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.