Talk:Shashthi/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   • 1st sentence in evolution section: "identifies her to Lakshmi" - this isn't clear for me. Would you please rephrase this sentence?

   "with Lakshmi". --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

   • "An early textual reference dating to 8th-9th century BCE relates Shashthi to the six Krittikas who nurtured and nursed Skanda." How does it relate them? This sentence could be clarified.

   The reference does not elaborate more. May be it is the number 6: Shashthi - the sixth and 6 Krittikas.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

   • Please rephrase the discussion about her name meaning "sixth" in this section, since the reason provided here does not correspond to the first explanation about celebrating six days after a child's birth.

   Are you talking about: "Shashthi has been depicted as the sixth (or 1/6th) aspect of the Mula-Prakriti (universal female energy), along with goddesses like Manasa and Mangala-Chandi. According to these scriptures, she is thus named Shashthi - "the sixth"." ? Modified it a little. There are numerous explanations for the name, 1. the worship on sixth day 2. the six heads 3. sixth aspect of Prakriti.

   • Because of the high frequency of proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to most casual readers, the clarity of the article will improve if you specify whether the name is the title of a text, a place name or a deity.

   Italicize texts. Please add a list of jargon that might still confuse a non-expert. I will add a short description for the same.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

   • "Further elaboration shows that like the six-headed Skanda, Shashthi too, has six heads and thus is called Shanmukhi ("six-headed") as well as Shashthi." Some of this is redundant information and the sentence doesn't quite tie into the paragraph well. Please revise.

   "Among the 18 malevolent spirit-followers of Skanda (called the Skanda grahas) is the graha Revati who is given the epithet of Shashthi. Further elaboration shows that like the six-headed Skanda, Shashthi [who is identified with Revati - a follower of Skanda] too, has six heads and thus is called Shanmukhi ("six-headed") as well as Shashthi." --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

   • Redundancy is an issue throughout the article. It could be significantly tightened throughout. Keep information relevant to worship, iconography etc limited to its respective sections to reduce repetition.

   Exactly what should I do? Please feel free to make the necessary changes.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

   • "The Kadambari asserts that images of Skanda and Shashthi appear on the wall of the queen's lying-in room." Which queen? When? Clarify

   The fictional queen in the 7th century Kadambari.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

   • "Hariti like Shashthi is pictured surrounded with children and is associated with the cat. " this idea needs to be better integrated into the article.

   The sentence relates to the similarities between the goddesses, which can be interpreted as some kind of common evolution of the deities or one religion's deity being transformed into another religion (eg. the Hindu Varahi inspiring the Buddhist Vajravarahi; the Buddhist Chinna-munda becoming the Hindu Chinnamasta). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

   • The last paragraph of the evolution section contains redundant material that might work better in the worship section.

   It is a part of evolution - as it tells her history, while Worship only concentrates on rites and days of worship. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Some more citations needed

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   See recommendations above

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   The image RaviLord-Muruga on WikiCommons needs an image summary. The image Kalash needs to be moved to WikiCommons.

   Done.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

1. I will begin reviewing this article over the next few days. Beautiful work! -- Lemurbaby (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and sorry for the delay in answering your comments as I hadn't noticed the review before. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

2. Thanks for your responses to the points I raised. Why don't you go ahead and make the changes to the text of the article itself and we'll take it from there. I agree with you that if information is included twice, citations do not necessarily need to be provided twice (although it makes it easier for the casual reader to see where the source is) - but if the source is only going to be mentioned once, this should be done the first instance when the information is presented. Please revise the citations to ensure the first instance is where the citation appears. Also, if the information is appearing twice, this is an example of the redundancy issue I mentioned before. I encourage you to revise the text so the information is only included in the section (under the sub-heading) where it is most appropriately included, or if it needs to be presented twice for the sake of context, to find a way to rephrase it each time so that it adds something new. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, repeated references. Reworded. For rest, please check if the explanation is Ok and erase the comment. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I copy-edited the article for stronger organization, clarity and less redundancy. This is now ready for GA. Thank you for all your hard work in writing and revising this article, and for all your many contributions to Hinduism topics on Wikipedia. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your constructive edits and the GA pass.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)