Contents

Talk:Trijata

Trijata has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: October 17, 2014. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Trijata appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 September 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the demoness Trijata is described as the ideal of a true friend by Indologist Camille Bulcke? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Trijata.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Hinduism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was last assessed in September 2014. Mythology Low‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles Nepal Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trijata/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AmritasyaPutra (talk · contribs) 14:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agood article is—

1. Well-written:

(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:

(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:

(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.
^[4]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
^[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]

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Simple clear language used.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	As per discussion, the doubts in WP:LEAD are addressed.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	It contains a list of all references presented in accordance with the layout style guideline, there are no dead links either.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	There are no opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements.	Pass
(c) (original research)	It contains no original research.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Yes, it coverts all major aspects.	Pass
(b) (focused)	As far as GA goes I think it is fairly focused.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Nothing incriminating, no suggestive wording in my view.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Stable. No ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Yes, the images are tagged with their copyright status.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Yes, images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass

Result	Notes
Pass	After discussed changes and per above comments I find it good against GA standard

I have started the review. It does not have any cleanup banners and does not contain any seemingly copyright infringements, I will continue with the six good article criteria. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 14:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initial feedback on the lead:

• Can you correct the Sanskrit spelling to त्रिजटा.

Corrected. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you clarify "In the original Ramayana" in the lead? (Probably adding "by Valmiki" as done in the body?)

Removed word "original". Ramayana is introduced in the lead. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you clarify "Southeast Asian versions" (Probably substituting with "in the Thai Ramakien" as done in the body?)

Southeast Asian versions include Thai, Malay, Indonesian versions. Sentence is referenced in "Trijata and Sita" para 1. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Redtigerxyz: The lead has "Southeast Asian versions often depict her as the wife of Rama's monkey general Hanuman...", it the body it is present in "In the Thai Ramakien, Hanuman helps...". Am I mistaken? --AmritasyaPutra^T 12:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AmritasyaPutra, The last para of "After the war" talks about Thai, Malay and Javanese traditions.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, right! All my queries are answered, I will continue with the review. --AmritasyaPutra^T 12:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks well-written, neutral. I found a few reference which did not actually support the text but maybe I am not reading the translation correctly. I will continue the review after your response to the above feedback. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AmritasyaPutra, Thanks for starting the review. I may be a busy in real life over the next few days and may take taime to reply.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pass, AmritasyaPutra. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]