Template:Did you know nominations/Trijata

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Trijata

(

)

~~... that the demoness Trijata is regarded the ideal of a true friend?~~

Reviewed: Li Shaohong
Comment: 5x began on 21 June and ended today

5x expanded by Redtigerxyz (talk). Self nominated at 09:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC).

The article is recently expanded, well written, within policy, and though I could not very close paraphrasing, I'll AGF on that. Same for the source of the quote (the quote itself does indeed verify the hook). However: I see an issue with this file -- I am confident that the content creator reused in good faith, but I am not sure that it should have been uploaded on commons. Like many other such files from the subcontinent, it has a very questionable "not in copyright" tag. It claims to reproduce a print by Anant Shivaji Desai (when in fact it looks like a very modern kitschy design, perhaps 1950s), it claims two sources of provenance (e-bay [!] and columbia.edu -- the latter with a misleading link that redirects to this beautiful piece). I think it should be removed from commons altogether, and I frankly recommend a big purge of all such uploads. This problem should not affect the rest of the article, which is manifestly within policy, but I feel it falls within the "no copyright violations" requirement. Dahn (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Images of Desai are all pre-1945, thus being PD-India. This was established in multiple DRs at Commons. So the image you point out is good to stay here and there. But if you still doubt it, feel free to use File:Folio from a Ramayana manuscript, text in Devanagari.jpg or File:Sita accepting a jewel from Hanumana sent by Rama, 1800s.jpg and pass the nomination as you say it shouldn't affect the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The image clearly has Anant Shivaji Desai printed on the bottom, meaning that it's fairly certain to be published before 1945 (check the version before the crop). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This needs a reviewer to give this a final check; it appears that the image issue has been explained satisfactorily. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment: the article looks pretty good. However, three things stuck out at me regarding this edit and the hook: the ref should appear at the end of the quote in the "Remembrance and assessment" section; Bulke's essay should note that it was originally published in 1964 in the references section; the hook says "Trijata is regarded the ideal of a true friend", but one asks, who regards Trijata in this way? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Have added the ref at the end of the quote. Also added the |origyear field in reference to include 1964. How is ALT1 now? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that the demoness Trijata is described as the ideal of a true friend by Indologist Camille Bulcke?

I like it. Is there any reason you have "south-east Asia" lowercase? Although "Southeast Asia" is more popular, British English uses "South-East Asia". See also Southeast Asia. Also, the lead says "She is also described to save Sita's life by dissuading her from committing suicide." Is that British English, because as an American, I'm not familiar with "described to save". Do you mean, "She is also said to have saved Sit's life", or something similar? Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

No reason I guess. Changed it to "Southeast Asia" now. Have also rephrased to "She is also said to have saved Sita's life". I guess the editor wanted to convey that while we in a discussion are describing Trijata, we also describe her as the saviour of Sita's life. Or something such. But let's go with your phrasing. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the ALT1 hook is fine. The problem I have is with the article, which needs a good copyedit. For example, in the lead it currently says "Trijata is a maid of the demon(rakshasa)-king Ravana of Lanka". Shouldn't that read "demon (rakshasa) king Ravana of Lanka". Or better yet, "Trijata is a maid of Ravana of Lanka, a demon king". There's a lot of little things like that. The readability of the article is very poor. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm on it. I struck out the first hook. This is tough going and I am not yet convinced of a happy ending. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
OK. That this was not so well-written is an understatement. I think I'm done. There's two issues left: one citation needs a page number, and the Bulcke quote needs to be checked--I have my doubts about the commas around "who retold the Rāma-story" and about "lovingly on". If Viriditas is happy with the sourcing etc., then we can sign off on this after these problems are taken care of. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent work. I will give it a final look. FYI, I already verified the quote/hook, so really the only thing standing in the way was the copyedit. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are still significant problems with the prose. Take the last line as only one example: " Even, Vibhishana deflection to Rama is blamed on his Aryan wife." I have no idea what that means. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Update: it looks like several editors are making progress in attempting to fix the article. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, going through the latest changes:

Lead. Done.
Names. Done.
The Ramayana. Done, however it is still a rough read and could use additional narrative prompts for the reader explaining the meaning of certain words and phrases. Much improved, though.
Evolution and associations. Done. Again, a very rough read. I'm also not sure that "evolution" is the correct term to use here, but it's probably fine for now. I suspect the terms "variations", "versions", or "adaptations" is more applicable than "evolution".
Trijata and Sita. A very rough read. It also seems to continue the theme of "variations". "versions", and "adaptations" from the previous section. To the uninitiated, this reads like a list of trivia rather than comparative literature. It uses many terms that should have been introduced to the reader in previous sections, but never were. Perhaps the first three paragraphs need to be more tightly integrated into the narrative. The fourth paragraph is good and holds the hand of the reader and walks them through the subject. It's just not clear from the beginning what we are reading, why we are reading it, and why it is important for the reader to know.
Trijata as Ravana's agent. Done.
After the war. Done. Again, a bit rough.
Remembrance and assessment. Done.

In summary, I would pass this DYK right now if it wasn't for the current state of the "Trijata and Sita" section, which I find difficult to read. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe renaming the sections will solve most of the problems. "Evolution and associations" can be renamed to "Evolution of association" and "Trijata and Sita" can be renamed to "Evolution of relation with Sita". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think that addresses the problem I raised above. At this point, the only thing stopping me from passing this hook is the readability of the section titled "Trijata and Sita", specifically the first half. Also, I said in the above comments that the use of the word "evolution" here isn't right, so adding it to two additional sections is certainly not helpful. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha, Drmies, are either of you willing to attempt to improve the readability of the "Trijata and Sita" section as requested by Viriditas? (I agree that it still needs work.) It seems a shame that this nomination might falter so close to the finish line. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, Viriditas, I don't know if the article is done, but I am. Unless I am sent more beer. Like, much more beer: this really should not have been left to the poor DYK volunteers, and I'm thinking of counting this one twice. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I was done long back. I simply am rephrasing stuff for no good reason as I can clearly understand it all. Probably its just that I am used to reading Hindu mythology article and have some knowledge about it. But I don't see that as a grave matter to stop it from going on main page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

For clarity's sake: obviously I am not a reviewer here, just a copy editor, but I have no objection to this going through in its current state. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Although the prose is not FA level (and may need some more polish for GA; I've had a go), it is already comprehensible enough for DYK. Working with the Ramayana and its characters is difficult because there is so much backstory and intrigue that almost any summary will sound like it's jumping from place to place. I'm not an expert on the work, but for me at least this article is reasonably easy to follow. Referencing is well done, but almost entirely offline so I'll AGF here. Hook fact is referenced, though I must AGF again because it is offline. Good to go. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)