Talk:Ganesha Purana

The importance of critical editions

As the article section on Source Text explains, the lack of a "critical edition" for the Ganesha Purana means that there is no single version of the text that is considered authoritative. For that reason I think it is important in making citations to indicate which edition is involved, as things like line numbers and even chapter organization is different among different editions. To appreciate this problem, consider what it would be like if there were no single, authoritative version of the Harry Potter books. For each book there might be variant versions. In some versions Harry might be called Hugh, or might have different adventures. Perhaps in some versions characters like Ron might not appear at all, or may be replaced by different characters. Indologists try to cope with these mazes by having consensus projects that examine multiple editions and use scholarly methods to try to determine what the variations have in common, and what relationship variants have to one another. The current article section on Source Text will try to keep track of the major editions that are available to the modern scholar. If you know of any edition that is not cited, please add it along with enough reference information so a person could obtain the physical text if they wanted to. Without examining the actual edition in your own hands it is impossible to determine how that edition varies from others. This is a tedious but important step in puranic work.Buddhipriya 02:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Article review

I believe this is an interesting topic and could eventually become a Good Article with hard work. However, the current state of the article falls short of GA standards.

1. Well written. The structure and flow of the article is not clear at first reading. The article may be confusing to readers with knowledge of the general topic. Overall, it needs to be rewritten with a general reader in mind. The lead needs some serious work so it complies with WP:LEAD. The writing and flow are the weakest elements of this article.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable. This article still needs to be better sourced. Some of the claims that could be potentially disputed are not cited. Example areas are the second paragraph of the "Significance" section and the first paragraph of the "Date of the work" section.
3. Broad in its coverage. Needs more information about its relevence in modern Hinduism and how the texts are used. Otherwise provides an impression of spotty coverage, but this may be a result of the writing than the content.
4. Neutral point of view policy. This articles adheres well to the NPOV policy.
5. Stable. This is a stable article.
6. Images. This article could use an image of an old manuscipt of the work and/or Ganesha. However, this is not a critical concern.

Fail. This article fails the GA nomination. A lot of work improving the writing is required. It needs more citations for its claims. The scope of the article needs to be slightly more comprehensive. Vassyana 09:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Avataras of Ganesha

This section should be moved to the article Ganesha. Kkrystian 17:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The article is reasonably well cited, but there are still some instances of parenthetical citations; these should be converted to in-line citations like the majority of the article.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The lead mentions that there are two Purana dedicated to Ganesha, but there is no explicit mention of what the second one is that I can determine. I would also think that the “Structure” and “Incarnations” sections could stand significant expansion, the latter as it specifically relates to the Ganesha Purana.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, there has been significant improvement from the last GA review. However, there are still some nagging concerns in the previous review not addressed in the current form. For example, the article still makes no mention of the significance of this work to modern Hinduism (admitting that there might not be, in which case, that should be stated). Some further expansion is still possible in the sections mentioned above. I think it is nearly there, but still needing some work. jackturner3 (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for the review. "The lead mentions that there are two Purana dedicated to Ganesha, but there is no explicit mention of what the second one is that I can determine."

there is no explicit mention of Mudgala Purana.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"I would also think that the “Structure” and “Incarnations” sections could stand significant expansion, the latter as it specifically relates to the Ganesha Purana."

There are only four incarnations of Ganesha discussed in Ganesha Purana, all of them are covered in the article. More details will WP:UNDUE to that section. Will work on Structure.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)