Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ahalya/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 15:32, 16 April 2012 [1].

---

Ahalya

Ahalya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Ahalya/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Ahalya/archive2

Nominator(s): Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahalya is a paradoxical figure in Hindu myth, venerated and condemned and who has become famous in legend due to her seduction by the king of the gods. The article returns to FAC, after two months of several constructive edits and comments (PR and talk) by various editors (in order of appearance): User:Mark Arsten, User:Saravask, User:Indian Chronicles, User:Rothorpe, User:Alarbus, User:Allens and User:Accedie. IMO, Ahalya is ready for another FAC as the improvements in the last two months have addressed the prose and reference related concerns in the last nomination. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments : A scholarly piece of work on a topic of which I know little. I'll go through in more detail later, but just a couple of comments for now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Today is not the right day for pleasure." Ahalya protests, maintaining that she imagines Gautama to be Indra as they have sex and that a woman should be a stone, forgoing all thought of pleasure. That night, when Ahalya longs for conjugal pleasure — too much "pleasure"?
  • Reworded.
• It's not clear to me why Buddhist Thailand should have a version of this
  • The Ramayana has many versions across South East India, including Buddhist nations. See Ramakien.
• I'm not sure what is the point of the Zeus legend at the end. There are similar tales in Roman, Celtic and Arthurian legend, and unless there is a direct link between the Indian and Greek versions it seems arbitrary to pick this one.
  • Scholars have linked Ahalya and Alceme (but not any of the other counterparts).

Thanks for your comments. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• (Zeus reply) That's not clear from your text, is it worth adding a footnote to clarify why you have selected this particular tale? Final comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• It is scholars like Söhnen and Doniger who relate (select) and contrast Alceme with Ahalya, the Greek Zeus is often compared to the Hindu Indra in other contexts too. The stories may have influenced each other. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Allens that "repercussions" reads better than "consequences"

• Hints of a relationship with Indra in the Brahmanas — bit clunky as a heading, seems more like a summary, wouldn't Brahmanas do?

• How about "Hints of a relationship with Indra"??--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'd suggest wikilinking mediaeval, petrification, iconographic, benediction, cyclonic and neurologist.

• mediaeval: no proper article available that talks about Hindu/India in mediaeval times. mediaeval India is a stub. petrification is about the scientific process, not this supernatural one. Benediction, like the Foot washing article (which I wanted to link) are about Christian concepts (not Hindu). Linked others. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• The spelling of mediaeval looks old-fashioned even to me, as a Brit of a certain age, but it's obviously not wrong, so your call.
• Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore (x2). He may be a great man, but we only need to be told he's a Nobel laurate once, I think.
• "Marxist critic" If it's a factual/generally accepted description, you don't need quote marks. If it is a quotation, it should be attributed and followed immediately by a reference.

• Done rest.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• I note that there are content-related issues below, but for my part I'm happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Oppose for now The nominator characterizes the issues of the first FAC as those of prose. This is incorrect. The main issue was that the source material had been inadequately digested and was consequently inadequately integrated. Errors of coherence abounded. No amount of corralling of well-meaning and capable copy-editors can resolve that problem. (I'm traveling and don't have much time, and certainly little time to respond, so the delegates may treat my oppose as a comment.) Here are some issues in the first paragraph of the lead:
• "is described in Hindu mythology as the wife of the sage Gautama"
  • It is possible that she is indeed described as "the wife of the sage Gautama," but in the one early translation of the Ramayana that I checked, her first mention is not a description, but rather an allusion. Thus when Rama asks:
    "'O reverend lord, I long to know
    What hermit dwelt here long ago.'
    Then to the prince his holy guide,
    Most eloquent of men, replied : ...
    This was the grove—most lovely then—
    Of Gautam, O thou best of men.
    Like heaven itself, most honoured by
    The Gods who dwell above the sky.
    Here with Ahalya at his side
    His fervid task the ascetic plied."
    It is more likely that she is presented/is depicted/alluded to/appears in Hindu mythology as the wife of Gautama.
    • This seems to be an extract from Bala Kanda, where Vishvamitra describes Ahalya's tale. Most scriptures do not allude to her as the sage's wife, but describe her tale. Reworded. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• as the wife of the sage Gautama
  • As before, the author is adamant about making an obscure point about the Hindu sage Gautama Maharishi being the original Gautama, even though the link Gautama pipes to Gautama Buddha, who too is a sage, and likely a better known one. By insisting on "as the wife of the sage [[Gautama Maharishi|Gautama]]" instead of "the wife of a sage called Gautama" or "the wife of a Hindu sage Gautama" or "the wife of the sage Gautama Maharishi", the author ends up confusing an average reader.
    • Done. Anyway, "Gautama" is a patronymic of the Buddha/Sakyas, which refers to this Gautama. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ahalya's seduction by Indra, the king of the gods, and its consequences form the central narrative of her story in all scriptural sources for her life.
  • "and its consequences" It is more likely that these are repercussions, since some of them are remote effects, happening thousands of years later.
  • After being told Ahalya is a figure of Hindu mythology, we are told about sources in scripture. An average reader might not make the connection that "mythology" and "scripture" are one and the same here. Why does "scripture" need to be mentioned?
  • We haven't been told the story yet, but yet are being told about "central narratives."

• The act results in a curse being placed on her by Gautama and her subsequent liberation by Rama, an avatar of the god Vishnu.
  • Do you mean "and in her subsequent ...?"
  • If you are not going to tell us what the curse is, it is better to say "and in the lifting of the curse by Rama" and not "liberation." I can think of some curses (e.g. Adam, because he hearkened unto the voice of his wife, was cursed to eat bread in the sweat of his brow.) whose lifting is not exactly liberation (at least not from some perspectives).
  • I have still not figured out why "an avatar of god Vishnu" is needed this early in the article, when Rama is better known to an average Wikipedia reader than Vishnu.

On what basis are you arguing this on Vishnu vs Rama? Before this article, I'd barely heard of Rama, but was familiar with Vishnu as one of the trimurti. One would think that the deity would be better-known than any believed to be his avatar... Allens (talk | contribs) 18:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Removed and reorganized. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ahalya is extolled as the first of the panchakanya ("five virgins"), archetypes of female chastity whose names are believed to dispel sin if recited.
  • The reader is given no clue about why the meager details provided thus far have any remote connection with "virginity," "chastity," and the dispelling of sin. Either don't mention this or at least first hint at a meaningful connection.
  • And if not recited? (Don't put the conditional at the end.)
    • This is as meaningful as it gets in Hinduism. Hindus believe virgins/chaste women help dispel sin.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
      • The revised version looks ok, to me, but I would suggest possibly clarifying who extols Ahalya, something like, "In Hinduism, Ahalya is extolled as..." or maybe "In traditional Hinduism...". Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• While her loyalty to her husband and her undaunted acceptance of the curse and gender norms is praised by some, others condemn her as an adulteress and a fallen woman.
  • We have still not been told the story, what meaning does "undaunted acceptance" have then? This is not an abstract for journal article written for an insider crowd. It is the lead of an article in an encyclopedia.
  • Gender norms? What gender norms?
  • Semantically incorrect opposition for a "while" clause. The proper opposition would be something like, "While her loyalty ... is praised by some, it is condemned by others as feebly feminine etc" OR "While some praise her loyalty to her husband, others condemn her adultery."

The author needs to explain the source material in accessible and coherent language. As it stands, the article has many of the same weaknesses as the first FAC version. If the author is planning to ask other copy-editors to work on the article, they in turn will need to ask more often, "What does this mean in simple language?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... in simple language :-}, are you asking for the lead material to be rearranged so that the story is first and then the importance is discussed? Allens (talk | contribs) 17:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) with Allens: Thanks for your comments. I have addressed the issues in the lead. Please elaborate other issues in the article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Most of Fowler&fowler's suggested wording changes to the lead seem Ok, but I disagree about mythology vs scripture. The terms certainly seem to be used correctly to me, just how ignorant do we expect the "average reader" to be? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• CommentsSupported, see below I supported this last time, and read over the article and helped a bit with the copyediting in the mean time. Overall it looks pretty good, a few comments:
• The second paragraph of "Hints of a relationship with Indra" is a little confusing to me, though part of it is all the Sanskrit (?) words, but specifically where you have "although Kaushika (interpreted as equivalent to Gautama) is present in the story". It prompts the question who interprets it that way? You mention Söhnen-Thieme in the next sentence, maybe some note about whether this is the general consensus might be helpful if there's a good source for it.
  • This seems to be the general scholarly interpretation. Both Feller and Söhnen-Thieme say the same. The ref for whole para are 22 (Feller 2004, pp. 132–5.), 23 (Söhnen 1991, p. 73) [Söhnen is now publishes as Söhnen-Thieme]. No other Ahalya-specific references cover the Brahmanas in detail. Added 1 more ref. Please let me know how can I simplify the section more.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Same thing with "(regarded as a later addition to the epic)" in the next section "regarded by most scholars" might be a better way to say it.
  • This is an [almost - if there exists that opposes this] unanimous general scholarly thought. The last Book of the Ramayana (not only the Ahalya episode) is widely regarded as a later addition. I have never come any book says that last Book was part of the original. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• "In the Uttar Kanda, Indra rapes Ahalya." Having a short sentence like this in between longer ones doesn't seem to flow very well to me.
  • Reworded. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Ahalya, engrossed in worshipping the gods, rejects him, considering it inappropriate to have sex at the cost of neglecting the gods." Is there a good way to avoid the repetition of "the gods" here?
  • Reworded. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• "When Brahma creates Ahalya as the most beautiful being, she falls in love with Indra and longs for him, but Brahma grants her to Gautama. Even after Ahalya's marriage, the lovers continue to meet in Gautama's absence." Some more explanation might be helpful, you say they continue to meet but it isn't really clear to in the previous sentence that they met and were lovers. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Reworded. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Made it down to "Modern renditions", looking good thus far. I made a few teaks, feel free to revert.
• One thing I saw, in the "Other variants" section you mention Chirakari, he's explained further down, but a little more explanation of who he is here would help. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • "Gautama orders his son Chirakari to behead his "polluted" mother" For the moment, this is enough IMO as the focus is Gautama's reaction.

Thanks for your comments and your edits. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, fixes look good to me, I'll think about that last one and try to finish reading over the article soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• "contemporary writers focus on Ahalya.[53] Ahalya has been examined in a new light by several modern writers..." Is there a good way to tighten this up (and maybe avoid the ...Ahalya. Ahayla...)?
  • Reorganized.
• Maybe include some dates in the third paragraph of "Modern renditions". Also, part of me thinks it should be the first or second paragraph in that section.
  • Done
• Try to be consistent about whether "Explanatory notes" (letters) come before or after "Citations" (numbers).
  • Done
• "S. Sivasekaram's 1980 Tamil poem Ahalikai questions Ahalya's life with regard to the stone metaphor that appears in the story:" Reads a bit awkward to me.
  • Reworded. Is it better?
• "The character of Ahalya played by Kamala Kotnis in the 1949 movie Sati Ahalya ("chaste Ahalya") was described as still relevant" Maybe add in-text attribution of who said this.
  • Done.
• "the practice of retelling the classical Ahalya–Indra tale in a contemporary setting is not new." Is there a better way to say this than "not new"?
  • Can't think of one.
• "After death, they reunite in their next birth." A little more explanation might be helpful here.
  • Linked reincarnation. In scholarly literature, "Next birth" is the term used for the life, one is reborn as.
• Do we know what "Vellala" derives from?
  • Source does not have any info about it.
• "Bathing in the tirtha is said to bring pleasure with the celestial nymphs." I'm not quite clear what you're saying here.
  • If one bathes in the tirtha, he will enjoy pleasure with the nymphs.
• The two sentences in the second to last paragraph seem thrown together, is there a better place to put them?
  • Both are related to Ahalya as a symbol of exploitation of women.
• Maybe note in the last paragraph that scholars have made this link, if nothing else it would help fend of complaints about OR.
  • I am unsure where should I put the names. Also, besides the references here, there are many other people who feel the same [2][3][4]
• Alright, this is looking good, not too many issues I could spot. Definitely a difficult task to structure all this information, but I think you've basically succeeded. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Actioned most of your concerns. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Support : Alright, fixes look good, I am now happy to support this article's promotion to featured status. Also, good job to the nominator for sticking with this for so long, researching and writing this must have been a herculean effort. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and your edits to the article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a need to link languages like Punjabi and Tamil in the article? Secret of success (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment. IMO, linked language articles inform the reader about the details about Indic language: where it is spoken/used and by whom. A Western reader may not know the geographical scope of Punjabi or Tamil. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Then, isn't it sufficient to link them once in the article? In some sections, they are not at all linked, while they are done so in the others. I believe uniformity is supposed to be a necessity here. Secret of success (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I have added links and cross-checked that languages are linked only once and at first instance. Indra and Rama links were linked twice. I have removed the links.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Support : Right then, I'm rendering my opinion as support. The article is comprehensive, fully referenced and satisfies all the points of the FA critera. Even the minor issues which were raised have been addressed well. With regards, Secret of success (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the support. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed this article for GA and it has improved even further since then, thanks to Redtigerxyz's continual hard work on this and other Hinduism topics, and the helpful contributions of fellow WP copyeditors and reviewers. I believe it meets FA quality standards and hope we'll see many more of your articles here at FAC. Keep up the great work, Redtiger. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This article still appears to need an image review and a source spotcheck. Ucucha (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Image Review : All images have correct copyright and source attribution. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Support, the image review and adding more copyright tags on Commons for the images.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Support I peer reviewed an earlier version of this article and was asked to comment on this FAC. Having carefully re-read it, I find it improved and find that it meets the FA criteria. There does seem to be a missing word in Modern renditions The Ahalya of the Tamil short story writer Ku Pa Rajagopalan (1902–44) also secretly longs for Indra and enjoys [her?] dalliance with him.[54] Well done! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. her/his dalliance is right, but I used as sort of an idiom as used here.

Support: I've read the article. The article is comprehensive, well-referenced, impeccably researched and has excellent prose quality. I didn't notice any glaring issues, and the issues raised earlier appear to have been rectified. It therefore appears to meet the criteria, and as such, i will vote in favour of its promotion. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 17:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Support: Entertaining and enlightening read! No issues.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Source spotcheck needed It is the only thing pending it seems. Many (not all) pages of the two of the most used references are available on Google Books: "The Ahalya Story Through the Ages" by Söhnen-Thieme and "Indra and Ahalya, Zeus and Alcmena" by Doniger. Bhattacharya and some articles in newspapers are linked in the article.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Redtigerxyz, given the strong support above, I'll aim to do that spotcheck myself today with a view to closing the review shortly thereafter if all's well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Reformatting of the dates has spoilt some links. Will fix in some time.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Spotcheck -- no instances of close paraphrasing found but some accuracy concerns:

• FN1 (all instances) -- generally check out but in (b) "created by Brahma" might be inferred but didn't seem to be explicit, only "created"; and in (e) "unsuspecting" Ahalya and "devious" disguise seem to be inferred from the source table but not explicit. I'd have thought these elaborations could easily be supported by additional citations.
  • The table is a summary of the texts elaborated ahead. I have changed to specific pages with explicit "created by Brahma". The theme of "unsuspecting" Ahalya and "devious" disguise is captured in "she takes him for her husband". "The Puranas introduce themes that are echoed in later works ..." is a topic sentence for the next para which justifies the words unsuspecting and devious. FN1 is used as a reference for the Puranas doing so. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Tks re. Brahma, and I accept what you say re. "unsuspecting". I'm still not sure that "devious" is particularly necessary here (any disguise might be considered devious) but it's not a deal-breaker. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• FN8 (b) -- couldn't see the Kama Sutra mentioned on the page cited (or the preceding page); if it's in a footnote in the source (couldn't view it), be worth citing that page as well.
  • It is on page 90 (next page) in this edition of the book. " ... the Kamasutra singles out Indra with Ahalya and Ravana with Sita as examples of men who were destroyed by uncontrolled desire."
• FN34 (a) -- similarly, while the Ahalya story info is all there on the cited page, the attribution to "the 18th-century Telugu rendition of the tale by the warrior-poet Venkata Krishnappa Nayaka of the Madurai Nayak Dynasty" isn't (Venkata only is mentioned in the source's footnote, that at last should be cited as well).
  • Wendy does not name the texts anywhere in the article, but names them in footnotes, which are there at end of the book. I have added the footnote pages in references that give the name of the texts. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• FN34 (b) -- couldn't see the "Today is not the right day for pleasure" quote in the source.
  • "Today is new moon", "Today is full moon", "I'm fasting", "Your fertile period is past." all mean that today is not the right day for pleasure. Hindu scriptures prescribe pleasure when the woman is in her menstrual period, it is not a new moon or full moon or a holy day for fasts. Changed to indirect speech, which is accurate. If this seems to be inaccurate, "by giving reasons based on suitability of the day for pleasure." or "giving some reason or the other".--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
    • No, the phase itself is fine, it was just that as you put it in inverted commas, it appeared to be representing a direct quote from the source, rather than a paraphrase -- removing the inverted commas works. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• FN65 -- the Prema Nandakumar article only seems to mention Pudhumaipithan, not Sreedevi, and I couldn't see a "double standards" quote.
  • That info is there in Richman 2008, pp. 113–4 (f), besides the FN 65 (now 66). "the stories by K. B. Sreedevi and Pudhumaipithan ... testify to Rama's double standard in relation to Ahalya and Sita". In Indian English, double standards is used generally in plural, so that changed it to plural.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The first three points above are pretty minor: while no outrageous uncited claims are made, a bit more is being inferred from the sources than is in fact present in the cited passages; the inferences may be reasonable in themselves, but more care needs to be taken to ensure the citations fully support the article text. The last two are a bit more serious. This is just what I found in a fairly quick check, you should doublecheck and finetune as necessary all the citations along these lines. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your checks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I have cross-checked and rectified page numbers and content for all footnotes. Please check. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will look over those tomorrow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, satisfied with the above work, so we can wrap this up now. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.