# Talk:Gal Vihara

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gal Vihara/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Parrot of Doom 13:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
This looks like a nice interesting article, it needs a little bit of work but I'm happy to review it.  Shouldn't take more than a few days to resolve any issues. Parrot of Doom 13:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok.  If you could please enter your replies under each point I make.  When resolved, I'll strike each comment.


### Lead
The (In Sahala) just writes a few gibberish characters on my screen.  Is this a fault in the template, or does my computer lack the character set to render them correctly?
Yes, it needs rendering support. I have added a template mentioning this.
Could you find a suitable link for 'image' please, as many people will falsely relate image to a 2-dimensional object?
It's already linked to Buddharupa, or do you mean something else?
"Image" as a noun for a statue, or painting—that kind of thing.
OK


### Uttararama
"100 temples built throughout Sri Lanka by King Parakramabahu I " - I copyedited that sentence so that Gal Vihara was not lost in the prose, but a question remains - was Sri Lanka identifiably the same country during Parakramabahu's reign, as it is now?
Yes, he had control over the entire country.[1] I'm not sure how to include this in the article without making it seem rather out of place.
What was the country now called Sri Lanka, known as, in Parakramabahu's time?
It was generally called Lanka, but most references simply use ancient Sri Lanka when referring to it. I think, this is to avoid confusion because Lanka is a location in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata (the same place but also very different, if you see what I mean :)) "ancient Sri Lanka" would be the more appropriate form here as well I think.
"The chronicle mentions that Parakramabahu I had his workmen build three caves in the rock after finishing the temple; the Vijjadhara Guha (cave of the spirits of knowledge), the Nissina Patima Lena (cave of the sitting image), and the Nipanna Patima Guha (cave of the sleeping image). Although they are described as "caves", only the Vijjadhara Guha is a cave," - why is the second instance of vijjadhara guha not italicised?
Fixed.
These walls have since been been destroyed, and only their bases now remain,[3] which were evidently decorated with frescoes" - the whole wall was decorated, or just the base?
Reworded
"Although abandoned with the fall of the Polonnaruwa Kingdom, the Uttararama functioned as an educational establishment during this period, being a centre of Buddhist education in the country" - abandoned with the fall, or during the fall?  And did it function as an establishment during the Polonnuruwa Kingdom, or during its fall? Parrot of Doom 14:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Reworded.


### Images
"Three of the images are quite large, while the fourth image is comparatively small, and located inside an artificial cavern carved into the rock." - we could do with measurements here, "quite large" doesn't give the reader any kind of idea as to the size.
Done, I think.
"These are followed by a standing image, and finally a reclining image." - followed, but in which direction?
Reworded. How does it sound?
"the images were evidently gold plated in their early years" - is it possible to gold plate rock, I thought one could only plate metals?  Or were they covered with gold leaf?
The provided ref clearly says they were gold plated, but I don't know about the possibility. Basnayake (1986), p. 73 also mentions that traces of gold were found in early archaeological excavations.
Gold-plating is the process of electroplating another metal - you can't electroplate rock, so I'd suggest more generic wording, like "coated in gold".  I think its very likely, however, that either gold-leaf or gold paint were used, so can you see if you can find that out?
Ah, that would explain it. I didn't know they were different. Language problem with the Sinhalese ref I guess; the two translate into pretty much the same thing. I have changed as suggested, and I'll check it the next time I visit the library.


### Standing image
"The standing image has been the focus of much discussion among historians and archaeologists, since there is a general belief that it is not a statue of the Buddha" - has been, or is it still subject to discussion?
Yes, fixed. Stupid mistake, that one.
"the monk Ananda, who stands next to the reclining image" - we haven't mentioned the reclining image yet, this is slightly confusing.
How would you suggest we say it then? English is not my native language, so I'm not the most creative person with it :)
Does Anada stand next to another object already mentioned at this point?  Or can you say "stands to the left/right/nearby the Seated image"?
I've added the part about the reclining image not to show it's position, but because it's something that supports the theory that it is Ananda (it says that Ananda was standing next to the Buddha at the time of his parinirvana). So, the argument is that Ananda is standing next to the Buddha. Is this unclear in the article? I have reworded it.
"Paranavithana believes that the statue is of the Buddha," - who is Paranavithana?
I didn't mention this since it was mentioned once above, but added now.
Ah I see now.
"Then only Lord Buddha decides it is good time for parinibbana." - what is parinibbana?
Same as parinirvana, but I have removed this part, which seems to have been added recently by someone else. I can't find any reliable sources (or even unreliable ones) supporting this claim.
"The image is not mentioned in the Culavamsa," - what is the Culavamsa?
It should be Chulavamsa, the chronicle that is mentioned earlier. I have fixed the spelling.
"Nevertheless, the statue was created on a lotus flower (Padmasanaya), which is an indirect indication to show that this is no other monk but Lord Buddha himself." - needs a citation Parrot of Doom 14:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Another recently added unreferenced part, and removed. The lotus flower itself is not an indication of the Buddha, and we can't give that conclusion anyway since we have clearly mentioned that the identity is under debate.
Hi, Parrot of Doom. Thanks for the review and sorry for the late response. I've fixed some of the issues you have pointed out, and will get the others done soon. I'll reply here when I'm done. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I have made some changes as you suggested. What do you think? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've stricken most of them, if you could just fix the remaining points then I think we'll be ok for GA. Parrot of Doom 13:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Made some more changes. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 15:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok I'm happy this meets the standards expected for a WP:GA, and am passing it accordingly.  Good work :)  There's a paucity of good foreign articles at WP:FA, so please do continue to work on it.  It wouldn't pass WP:FAC as it is, but with a bit more expansion and work on the prose it might fare quite well.  Considering that English isn't your first language I think you've done an excellent job writing it in English. Parrot of Doom 13:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the review and compliments :) Your copy editing definitely helped. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Can this article si:ගල් විහාරය be linked to this one on the English Wikipedia? I don't know the language. --173.56.251.165 (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 07:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gal Vihara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110302032117/http://www.dailynews.lk:80/2008/09/03/fea20.asp to http://www.dailynews.lk/2008/09/03/fea20.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gal Vihara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailynews.lk/2008/09/03/fea20.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090710174401/http://www.ccf.lk/polonnaruwa/ to http://www.ccf.lk/polonnaruwa/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Start. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)