Talk:Panchakanya/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 04:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Reviewing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- ChrisGualtieri, Thanks for the review.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- The lead is lacking in description, please expand it per WP:LEAD.
- I am a little busy in real life. Will work on that. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- "She is often regarded as the head of the panchakanya" - is not on page 17 of the source.
- Sorry, I don't know how some of the refs got jumbled.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- The body of the text is lacking sources and it seems to that the sources consulted do not outright give the details provided in at least the first case. The actual lack of inline citations are a WP:MINREF concern.
- The article is written in WP:SUMMARY STYLE. As such the references are consolidated at the end of the para.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that, as it should be, but that does not change the fact that within my first looks into the media - there are noted differences in the stories. You start with "In the Ramayana (the earliest full narrative of the tale), Ahalya sees through his disguise, but still complies out of "curiosity"." Which should cite that text, but then you ambiguously use "in later texts" without specifying. While this is a lengthy run-on sentence, it highlights the issue further: " Although early texts describe how Ahalya must atone by undergoing severe penance while remaining invisible to the world and how she is purified by offering Rama - an avatar of the god Vishnu and hero of the Ramayana - hospitality, in the popular retelling developed over time, Ahalya is cursed to become a stone and regains her human form after she is brushed by Rama's foot." And a classic "which" template could be attached to this sentence: "Some versions also mention that she was turned into a dry stream and that she would be condoned of her guilt when eventually the stream starts flowing and joins the river Gautami (Godavari)." And "Indra was cursed to be castrated or be covered by a thousand vulvae that ultimately turn into a thousand eyes." is similar, but at least I am familiar with the Thousand Eyes aspect. The issue is that you need to state whether it is the Brahma Purana or the Shiva Purana or the Katha-Sarit-Sagara. See my point? And this is just the first section, I should be able to read the article and recite to which claim and each story makes and compare or contrast its differences directly and not ambiguously. Pradip Bhattacharya's text seems more than able to bear the bulk of this, but I ask for more inline citations and specifics because of the switching texts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- The raison d'etre of this summary is that there are too many versions of Hindu legends (the details are in FA Ahalya). Encyclopedias often drop the names of texts and summarise the trends in the legends. See Encyclopedia of Hinduism.Redtigerxyz Talk 13:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- But it was provided for you in the source already referenced. I think I might need a second opinion in this case simply because I desire attribution of the claims where possible and it was already given. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- The references at the end of the para support all facts in the para.Redtigerxyz Talk 18:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- But it was provided for you in the source already referenced. I think I might need a second opinion in this case simply because I desire attribution of the claims where possible and it was already given. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- The raison d'etre of this summary is that there are too many versions of Hindu legends (the details are in FA Ahalya). Encyclopedias often drop the names of texts and summarise the trends in the legends. See Encyclopedia of Hinduism.Redtigerxyz Talk 13:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that, as it should be, but that does not change the fact that within my first looks into the media - there are noted differences in the stories. You start with "In the Ramayana (the earliest full narrative of the tale), Ahalya sees through his disguise, but still complies out of "curiosity"." Which should cite that text, but then you ambiguously use "in later texts" without specifying. While this is a lengthy run-on sentence, it highlights the issue further: " Although early texts describe how Ahalya must atone by undergoing severe penance while remaining invisible to the world and how she is purified by offering Rama - an avatar of the god Vishnu and hero of the Ramayana - hospitality, in the popular retelling developed over time, Ahalya is cursed to become a stone and regains her human form after she is brushed by Rama's foot." And a classic "which" template could be attached to this sentence: "Some versions also mention that she was turned into a dry stream and that she would be condoned of her guilt when eventually the stream starts flowing and joins the river Gautami (Godavari)." And "Indra was cursed to be castrated or be covered by a thousand vulvae that ultimately turn into a thousand eyes." is similar, but at least I am familiar with the Thousand Eyes aspect. The issue is that you need to state whether it is the Brahma Purana or the Shiva Purana or the Katha-Sarit-Sagara. See my point? And this is just the first section, I should be able to read the article and recite to which claim and each story makes and compare or contrast its differences directly and not ambiguously. Pradip Bhattacharya's text seems more than able to bear the bulk of this, but I ask for more inline citations and specifics because of the switching texts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, from what I've checked, the problem is not all the references work for all of them, and its just in a pile where I cannot verify anything without checking all of them individually for the text and there are some pretty big issues with that. The fact I am asking you to cite where, specifically, you derive the text from is not supposed to be a big deal - but I read through a source and found many omissions when there need be none and that despite being referenced, the details were not found in the source I consulted.
- Example: " In the Ramayana (the earliest full narrative of the tale), Ahalya sees through his disguise, but still complies out of "curiosity"." you should cite Pradip Bhattacharya. For the next line, Bhattacharya cites "Uttara Kanda" specifically, but I see no other mention of rape. Nor would it be in "Rāmāyaṇam as Told by Vālmīki and Kamban" and as for "Puranic Encyclopaedia: a Comprehensive Dictionary with Special Reference to the Epic and Puranic Literature." - I simply do not know.
What is the issue with citing the text and citing, specifically, the source with an inline reference here? Repeated use of "Some versions" and such do not help build an understanding or aid in verification. And this is a repeated issue in this article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have removed ref where there was repetition and made some changes. Please let me know if I am on the right track in Ramayana section. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Because of these issues with verification, I have to stop the review here and please it on hold. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Perfect @Redtigerxyz:, just follow through with the "From the Mahabharata" as necessary and it should be almost done. I am on a bit of a time table unfortunately with an impending vacation coming up in a few days, but this is definately good. Also, I managed to get a copy of Mani 1975. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- ChrisGualtieri, Ref part is done.Redtigerxyz Talk 10:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Perfect @Redtigerxyz:, just follow through with the "From the Mahabharata" as necessary and it should be almost done. I am on a bit of a time table unfortunately with an impending vacation coming up in a few days, but this is definately good. Also, I managed to get a copy of Mani 1975. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Another version
[edit]•The Version seems wrong “Ahalya, Draupadi, Kunti, Tara, Mandodari tatha Pancha-Kanya smaren nityam, mahapatak naashaka!” All are “Ajonijas except Kutni; so Kunti is not added in the bunch 'kanya' as she is not an “Ayonija” 'not born from the womb of the woman or from yoni'. The others come under “Ajonijas” “ and Kanyas; It is “Ahalya, Draupadi, Tara (Chandra’s wife) or Sita (born from earth- Bhomi), Tara, Mandodari . They are Kanya’s for ever and As not born from a womans womb.Actually Sita is not added by many. As she had no second relation. "Ahalya, Draupadi, Tara (Chandra's wife), Tara ()Vali's wife, Mandodari"- All these had second relation And Born without Mother! Though they had sexual relations and had children they were like "Kanyas" for ever till their end.(looked so young?) Bschandrasgr (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)