Talk:History of Shaktism

New Article

This article is composed of the "Early Origins" and "Philosophical Development" sections of the Shaktism main article as I've recently revamped it. The only real change (so far) is that I've taken intros of several subsections and – combining them with some additional material – fashioned them into a lead. Next I need to check on reference list's accuracy and whether links need to be added (or removed). (Devi bhakta 19:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC))

GAN

• They were given an aristocratic colour [befitting their new adherents' more] elevated position in the society.

These portion of the quotation is hard to read with the additional [befitting their new adherents' more] for coherency. If the addition [befitting their new adherents' more] could be re-worded it would be nice.  Done.--(Devi bhakta (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

• As the Indus Valley Civilization slowly declined and dispersed, its peoples mixed with other groups to eventually give rise to Vedic Civilization (c. 1500 - 600 BCE), a more patriarchal society in which female divinity continued to have a place in belief and worship, but generally in a subordinate role, with goddesses serving principally as consorts to the great gods.

This is a long sentence.  Done.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Also significant is the appearance in the famous Rigvedic hymn, Devi Sukta, of two of Hinduism's most widely known and beloved goddesses: Vāc, today better known as Saraswati; and Srī, now better known as Lakshmi, who unambiguously declares, in words still recited by thousands of Hindus each day:

This sentence is awkward and the initial segment was re-read to join into the latter portion. Can it be re-worded for more fluency?  Done.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Is there a date or date range for the Kena Upanishad to compare to the date range given for the Shakta Upanishads?

 Done.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• The text is closely associated with another section of the Brahmanda Purana entitled Lalitopakhyana ("The Great Narrative of Lalita"), which extols the deeds of Lalita-Tripurasundari, particularly her slaying of the demon Bhandasura

In this above text, the name of Lalita-Tripurasundari should be written as Sri Lalita-Tripurasundari.

Sri is not part of name, more like a prefix , sometimes translated in English as "Lord". For more: see Sri.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Re Section titled: Lalita Sahasranama. Can the lead paragraph of this section contain a dictionary type of definition of Lalita Sahasranama. The first paragraph provides an excellent introduction to Sahasranama, but one needs to read all the paragraphs to obtain full knowledge of the full title Lalita Sahasranama.

 Done.-- (Devi bhakta (talk) 06:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

• Re Section titled: Samkhya and Vedanta. Can also the lead sentence / paragraph give the reader a brief dictionary type of definiton of Samkhya and Vedanta being schools of classical Indian philosophy, and work this definition into the history as relates to Shaktism. Are Samkhya and Vedanta from the north or south and how do these titles refer to the description of evolution as given from the basis of the paragraph discussion which seems to focus on north and south.

 Done.-- (Devi bhakta (talk) 06:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

• I also question the use of dashes at some points in the article. Paragraphs/sentences should not be frequently separated by dashes as it breaks the flow. Commas and semicolons are more appropriate.

Wikipedia:MOS#Dashes approves the use of dashes. It says:

Because em dashes are visually striking, Wikipedia takes care not to overuse them. A rule of thumb is to avoid more than two in a single paragraph, unless the paragraph is unusually long or the use of more than two em dashes would be logically cohesive. Only very rarely are there more than two em dashes in a single sentence.

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Re section titled: Tantras. The word panchamakara could be given a teeny intro ie in brackets following term to retain fluency within the article for those who are not Skakta or Hindu practitioners.

 Done.--(Devi bhakta (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

• The credibility of Tantric Shaktism received an high-profile boost c. 800 CE, when Adi Shankara, the legendary sage and preceptor of the Advaita Vedanta system, composed his powerful (and still hugely popular) ode to the goddess known as Saundaryalahari ("Waves of Beauty"), which references much Shakta philosophy and Tantric liturgy.

This is a long sentence with many sub sentences within it.

 Done.--(Devi bhakta (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

• The evolution "achieved a completeness" in the great Shakta saint Ramakrishna (1836-1886),...

The name also should have the full title...Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, (even though as you have it worded for English readers this may be justifiable translation of the full Sanskrit title). The full title was given to Sir John Woodroffe automatically, so also to the first mention at least of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa.  Done--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, Vedic descriptions of Aditi are vividly reflected in the countless so-called Lajja Gauri idols – depicting a faceless, lotus-headed goddess in birthing posture – that have been worshiped throughout India for millennia:

No colon needed but should be a period at end of the sentence. (again another instance of dashes to eliminate)

Dashes reply as before. A period is not needed. The sentence intends to say that the idols are worshipped for ages.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaced dashes with parentheses for clarity. Done--(72.87.85.12 (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

• The ongoing process of Goddess-worshiping tribals "coming into the fold of the caste system [also brought with it] a religious reflex of great historical consequence."[20]

Change the wording to not use the word tribals but rather tribal....or tribes....

 Done--(Devi bhakta (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

• In the 18th and 19th centuries, "a good number of Shakta-Tantric works were composed," which "attempted to make the Tantric ideas popular among the masses

change which to this.

(Changed to "that")  Done.--(Devi bhakta (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.(from semi automatic peer reviewer)

Next to establishing context, the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article (e.g. when a related article gives a brief overview of the topic in question). It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see news style and summary style).

From Wikipedia:Lead section See also Better lead

 Done--(Devi bhakta (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

• in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark

 Done--(Devi bhakta (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

• Image:Mehrgarh figurine3000bce.jpg needs fair use rationale thingie

Changed pic.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Mehrgarh figurine3000bce.jpg Check why there is a question mark in an encyclopedia article for the suitable caption of an image. The roots of Shaktism?

 Done.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Jai Santoshi Maa.jpg needs Rationale for fair use thingie

 Done --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Mother Meera 8.jpg needs attribute to its author(s) or licensor(s) - some rights reserved.

 Done--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Within the Hindu genre of Sahasranamas – literally, "thousand-name" hymns, extolling the names, deeds and associations of a given deity – the Lalita Sahasranama is considered "a veritable classic, widely acknowledged for its lucidity, clarity and poetic excellence."

Can this sentence be re-worded more as a fact...is considered... should be the part re-done with different wording...also another dash in this sentence...as mentioned above.

 Done.--(Devi bhakta (talk) 06:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Remove dashes, and reply to comments above.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The sections are sourced, access to websites are OK. I don't have access to the books mentioned. According to other sources regarding history of Shaktism article is factual in coverage.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Very well done

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   good on neutrality

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):

   See comments above on three images.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On Hold? Good luck improving the article

Overall a well thought out article, but needs a few tweaks here and there. I placed it on hold as you seem to be able to perform amendments within the time frame allotted. SriMesh | talk 02:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

GAN passed

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

WOW!! You'se did an awesome job on the changes that were requested!!!

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):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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:

   aye Good job on improving the article

SriMesh | talk 21:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear SriMesh: Thanks once again for your careful and thoughtful reading of this article and for your excellent suggestions to improve it. Thanks finally for the promotion to GA status. It was a good and instructive cycle of editing. Once again, thank you. (Devi bhakta (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Shaktism. 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/20080228224818/http://www.heritageindianews.org/Streaming/Audio/Murthy/Thanthrasastra_1.MP3 to http://www.heritageindianews.org/Streaming/Audio/Murthy/Thanthrasastra_1.MP3

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) 22:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)