Wikipedia:Peer review/Ahalya/archive2

Ahalya

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Ahalya recently failed a FAC. Continuing the process of improvement further to improve the article to FA status. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another great article. Just one point to start with:

I can't quite make sense of "Liberated by Rama, Ahalya rises from stone, a 19th century Kalighat painting." Should it mean something like "Rama liberates Ahalya from stone in this 19th-century Kalighat painting."? Saravask 08:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tweaked a bit. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Can comment further this weekend. Saravask 05:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

"seduction with" — wrong preposition; should be "seduction of"
1. Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"modern age poetry" — needs WP:HYPHEN: "modern-age poetry"
1. Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"depicted as on the book" — "as" is redundant
1. Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Tulsidas's 16th century" — hyphen needed: "16th-century"
1. Not needed per WP:CENTURY. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Bhakti era poets" — needs WP:HYPHEN
1. Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"an epic heroine, who is no longer" — extra comma
1. Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"temple dancer tradition" — WP:HYPHEN
1. Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"include the dance Mohiniyattam" — could be "include the mohiniyattam dance"
1. Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"king of gods - Zeus" — unclear spaced hyphen; probably was supposed to be a dash
1. Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"and Harivamsa (0–300)" — there is no year zero
1. Done. Changed other dates per WP:CENTURY too. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"and against our (Indian/Hindu) culture" — Is the parenthetical insertion his/hers, or yours? If the latter, then should replace parens with brackets.
1. author's. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"(and Hindu society's) rape" — same question
1. author's. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"river Godavari" — Not sure about this, but could be "River Godavari" in Indian English; same for Narmada, etc. See Godavari River and River Thames.
1. "the river Godavari" is used by Karnataka Water resources Dept. I have seen "River Godavari" too. No one convention IMO. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The Vamana Purana mentions" — work of title needs italics
1. Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Malay adaptation, Hikayat Seri Rama, and" — same issue
1. Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to just implement some of the above; if others don't like the changes, they can revert per WP:BRD.
1. Thanks for your edits. Adding Done to your comments, wherever the comments are addressed mostly by you. :) --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily 100% satisfied with the rest of the prose, but that probably just comes down to personal style differences, which are to some extent allowed by MOS. So I'll leave that less-important stuff, which involve parentheses and commas, unmentioned.
"The place where Ahalya practised penance and was redeemed, has been celebrated ..." — awkward/unnecessary comma
1. Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per SandyGeorgia at Kolkata, reference titles should either all be in sentence case, or they should all be in title case. At the moment, it's a mix of the two. Inconsistent per Nikkimaria's comment in the FAC.
1. This policy is unclear to me. Have asked Sandy for help. Will fix later. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Converted to title case. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From my novice point of view, with the possible exception of the other source formatting issues raised by Nikkimaria (I haven't scrutinised every ref), this appears ready for another FAC.
The above points are just opinions attempting to effect a certain style—take them or leave them.
I lack the knowledge to agree or disagree with Fowler's prose-related FAC comments.

As I said before, I find this a fascinating article that is FAC-worthy. Great work; nice-looking page. If needed, can comment further next weekend. Cheers. Saravask 19:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much better now. Will wait until other reviewers comment before adding more, if needed. Saravask 19:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger, I have gone through the article. The research done behind the article done seems to be tremendous and I congratulate you and others who have put in the effort. However I feel the readability has been compromised. As a lay Indian although I am familiar with the story of Ahilya, I got lost in the article. Trying to accommodate all view points, all versions has turned this article more into a research on versions of Ahilya rather than narrating a story on Ahilya. You will have to take an average wikipedian who wants to know the story of Ahilya. My suggestion is that since it will be a mythological biography, follow that pattern. Give the most popular version of biography, than in a separate section you can have a discussion on differing view points and version so that the reader is not bombarded with different versions in the whole article. I do not know that whether this suggestion will be helpful or not or this is a correct way.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Indra's seduction/rape/deceit is mentioned so many times in different section that it becomes quite confusing. Why not have a section called Seduction by Indra and discuss the different versions there. Then the story will flow properly.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. The problem with Ahalya is that there is no detailed "the most popular version". The popular version just has three common elements: Ahalya is fooled by Indra's disguise; Ahalya is turned to stone and Rama redeems her. All other details change in every scripture, dance-drama or TV serial. And strangely in the original Ramayana, the earliest full narrative, the former two elements are missing. Reorganizing "Encounter with Indra: Curse and redemption" may help, however I am not sure exactly how. Trying out something at User:Redtigerxyz/Ahalya. Please take a look. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the article at User:Redtigerxyz/Ahalya. Now the logical flow is much better. However the name and development section is too long. In name and development section you are already discussing the main plot in fragments like sex with Indra, curse, redemption many times that it renders the plot in subsequent section irrelevant. Maybe development section can come after the storyline? Can you also try to reduce the name and development section to half the size? It will be more readable. I understand that you have done so much research Ahilya and have come through so many versions that you have tried to accommodate each and every version and that is making your task of simplifying the article difficult.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]