Talk:Matsya/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 22:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Starts GA Review. The review will follow the same sections of the Article. Thank you --Whiteguru (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Whiteguru. Will await your comments.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

 

Hopefully I will get around to this in the next day or so.

 

---

Observations

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

   HTML document size: 210 kB
   Prose size (including all HTML code): 37 kB
   References (including all HTML code): 63 kB
   Wiki text: 43 kB
   Prose size (text only): 21 kB (3747 words) "readable prose size"
   References (text only): 8374 B

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

• Lead is well scribed, a good introduction.
• We have Saviour in the headings and savior in the text. Can we settle on one spelling?

• Standardized to Indian English.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Good to see the reference to Monier-Williams!
• 'law of the fishes' and dharmic protection: a good line. A good capture in reference 21.
• fish-Agni is a good statement as Agni is the oldest and first deity to be worshipped in vedic rituals.
• Hayagriva, yes. Hayagsiras is not a term I have come across before. What's the source?

* Generally an epithet of Hayagriva, but in Narada Purana used for the asura. Cross-checked the ref again. It says that Matsya killed Hayasiras who stole the Vedas. Also, Hayagriva killed Madhu and Kaitabha, who did the same thing.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

• I'd like to see a distinction (possibly in the form of a note) between the 'laws of the Man' and the Laws of Manu - as Manu is frequently mentioned in this section. This is to ensure your reader is not confused.

• it was "law of the fishes", changed by someone to "laws of the Man". Crosschecked the ref.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

• The article follows an appropriate order: Vedic origins, saviour of Manu, Saviour of the Vedas, Avatar lists, other scriptural references, Iconography, Evolution, Symbolism and Worship. In this wise, there is a good flow in this article.
• There is a sharp, succinct summary of the various flood myths. Well handled.
• cosmogonic myth: evolution to involution to evolution again in a new manvantara. A good summary of the underlying connectivity and divinity of Matsya narratives.
• Interesting reference to the Meena community. Was not aware of this connection.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

• Yes, NPOV is preserved in this article.
• There is a balance between exegesis of the mythology and relevance of the mythology to Vedic culture.

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

• Page created 7 October 2002
• Page has 765 edits by 309 editors
• 90 day page views = 42,019 views with a daily average of 462 views
• Page is stable, ClueBot NG, AnomieBOT, IA Bot and Citation bot have all been on the page.
• Majority of edits on page occurred during 2020.

1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

• 10 Images on page.
• Images are appropriately licensed and tagged.

---

1. Overall:

• For one who is familiar with Hindu mythology and the Dasavatars, this is brilliant and fast read; you don't trip up anywhere reading this.
• The presentation of the multiple sources for Matsya is well laid out with explanation and background.
• Good work on the references.
• Some minor matters and questions that we might clean up? Thank you. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Whiteguru for the review. Hopefully addressed all your concerns.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your corrections @Redtigerxyz:. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Whiteguru for the detailed review and pass.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

 

 Passed