Jump to content

Talk:Morya Gosavi

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

==GA Review==

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

Reviewer: Vibhijain (talk · contribs) 15:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this tomorrow. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  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. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose)
    • "Moroba Gosavi is a prominent" ---> "Moroba Gosavi was a prominent"
    • "and described as" ---> "and has been described as"
    • "The date of Morya Gosavi" ---> "The lifetime of Morya Gosavi"
    • "between the 13th to 17th century range" ---> "between 13th to 17th century"
    • "However, due hindrance in Morya's services" ---> "It is believed that due to the hindrance in Morya's services"
    • "Ganesha is described to told Morya" ---> "Ganesha told Morya"
    • Link Dev, and it should be Devas (according to the article title).
    Generally Anglicized as Dev. His descendants/relatives still use Dev or sometimes Deo, but never Deva.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Devas are not god according to Hinduism.
    In Marathi, Devs are gods: god with the lower case g. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Red link. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But it still should be linked. The reader should know that this article has to be created and he can help.
    Tathavade linked. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A legend recalls:" ---> "According to a legend"
    • "on Ganesh Chaturthi" ---> "on the occasion of Ganesh Chaturthi"
    • "could not find place in the" ---> "could not find a place in the"
    • "laity found Morya guilty of sorcery" ---> "laity accused Morya of sorcery"
    Also read a Marathi version of this. They found him guilty in their assembly.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Then mention this.
    Do not have reference for this currently so can't add. Accused is also right so making it accused for now. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "similar to that worshipped at Morgaon" ---> "similar to the one worshipped at Morgaon"
    • "him milk everyday Morya visited Morgaon" ---> "him milk everyday he visited Morgaon"
    • "of house where Morya was waiting" ---> "of the house where Morya was waiting"
    • Delink Shivaji at second usage.
    • "visit the Ganesha temple at Theur" ---> "visit the Chintamani Temple of Theur"
    • "the form of Ganesha visited at Theur" ---> "the form of Ganesha, which according to a legend, visited Theur"
    The para starts with "Another legend" so redundant IMO. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Then replace it with "the form of Ganesha which visited Theur."
    • "Tathwade village in Chinchwad" ---> "Tathwade". Mention that Tathwage is a village in the word's first usage.
    Alternate spelling of Tathavade. Replaced with Tathavade. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delink sanjeevan samadhi at third usage.
    • "Morya took sanjeevan samadhi" ---> "Morya also took sanjeevan samadhi"
    • "Dev spelt also as Deva or Deo (god)" ---> "Deva" (delinked)
    • Replace Dev with Deva at all other usages.
    • "impressed by the latter's "miracle" of changing into jasmine flowers the piece of beef sent by the former" ---> "impressed by the latter's "miracle" of changing a piece of beef sent by the former into jasmine flowers" (link beef)
    • Pune ---> Poona
    Current spellings are used through the article. So Pune. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a general practice to use the then name of the city. You should replace Pune with Poona at all usages.
    Poona is a British era name, not at the time of Morya. The name at the time of Morya is unknown. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Morya Gosavi or Moraya Gosavi (Marathi: मोरया गोसावी, Morayā Gosāvi)" ---> "Morya Gosavi (Marathi: मोरया गोसावी, Morayā Gosāvi) or Moraya Gosavi"
    Actually Morya and Moraya are alternate spellings of मोरया. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Morayā Gosāvi" ---> "IAST: Morayā Gosāvi"
    {{IAST}} is used. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "divine revelations after the death of his parents" - Copyvio[1]
    "divine revelations" was already in quotes. "After the death of his parents" is excused as per Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What is not plagiarism point 2: phases... --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1885 Text is in PD. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    		 Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS)
    • "is a prominent saint of the Hindu Ganapatya sect, which considers the elephant-faced god Ganesha as the Supreme Being. Morya Gosavi is considered the chief spiritual progenitor of the Ganapatyas and described as the "most famous devotee" of Ganesha." - All of this needs to be mentioned in the sections.
    Mentioned. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    		 Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references)
    • A archive page exists for ref. 7. (the actual page is dead now)
    Thanks. Didn't realize the Gazeeteer site was dead link. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    		 Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources)
    • "Various legends associate Morya Gosavi ... that it was started in 1658-9." - Reference needed.
    Details and references in "Death and lineage" and "Veneration". --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to add the ref to this paragraph also as this argument is valid only for lead section.
    Done. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source does not mention beef's impurity. You should add an another source for it.
    IMO, not everything needs a reference. The impurity of beef is unlikely to be challenged. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It might not be challenged, but someone who is not at all familiar with Hinduism may like to verify this.
    		 Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) All fine Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects)
    • His dates are disputed and not unknown.
    Dating section exists. I did not understand which aspect needs to be added. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am talking about the lead - "The lifetime of Morya Gosavi is unknown".
    • The source says that his father was Bhat Shaligram and Vaman Narayan was his father's friend.
    • Mention Sidhdha Yogiraj.
    • The first story (He was thrown out of the house by his father ... 50 miles (80 km) away from Morgaon" is from Trans. Bom. Lit. Soc. III. 69; Murray's Handbook, 178-179. Lord Valentia (Travels, II. 152-158).
    These three references are secondary sources of the story. They are probably not the authors. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mention Mrs. Graham.
    Thought WP:UNDUE (violating b part), as article about Morya, not his son. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The temple still enjoy the grant (£1380)
    1885 data. Since this is about the saint and not the temple, thought will be UNDUE. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mention the names of the 8 villages (the source provides them)
    WP:UNDUE. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    		 Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) All fine Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    All fine Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    All fine Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) All fine Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) All fine Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass On hold till one week. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article passed. Congrats! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Please add any related discussion here.

Additional Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Morya_Gosavi&oldid=1193692281"