Talk:Hampi/GA1

GA Review

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

I'll do this one. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: Thanks. I will help Shrikanthv in addressing your concerns and comments during this GA review. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is a fine and very well-cited article, and I shall have few comments to make - it's basically ready for GA.

~~Why not link Ashoka in lead.~~

Done. - MSW

~~Link Shiva, Durga, Krishna, Pampa, Ramachandra, linga at first instance in body.~~

Indeed. Linked the first instance in the main text (not captions or with cites). - MSW

~~Link Gopuram, Ganesha, Narasimha, Vitthala at first instance in captions.~~

Done. - MSW

~~Article repeatedly says it's on the banks of the Tungabhadra River.~~

Fixed. In some instances, it is a temple that is on the banks which seems appropriate given other temples are not. - MSW

~~Might be best to choose either Gopuram or Gopura as the spelling throughout.~~

Done. Gopura -> Gopuram, since we linked the latter. - MSW

~~Guess Kathleen Morrison and Carla Sinopoli are archaeologists - better say so.~~

Yes. Done. - MSW

~~Similarly, say Will Durant was a historian.~~

Done. - MSW

I think you should briefly mention and cite the Hampi Hippie connection. It is part of the history.

Checking into RS. - MSW
was checking RS but should this toppic be relevant to Hampi (town) and not the actual collection of monuments protected by UNESCO ? Shrikanthv (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To an extent that's your call - it could be a footnote with a link to the other article, but the popularity with visitors of all types is surely directly linked to the archaeological site with its religious artefacts. Indeed, it would be advisable to say something about tourism to the site. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added this with source to the Hampi (town) article. I will add a note here, as that seems like the better balance given Shrikanthv's spot on comment. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

This is a splendid article, well up to the required standard, and I am happy to award it GA status now. I hope very much that the nominators will review some of the many articles currently languishing in the GA queue to encourage other editors. If you are thinking to take this article further to FAC, I would guess you have a good chance, and can only suggest paying careful attention to polishing the text and especially the references. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]