Talk:Ahalya/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

"The scholar Söhnen-Thieme feels that this Kaushika is the same individual described as cursing Indra in the Mahabharata." This doesn't feel like it fits here; tie it in better with more context, move it elsewhere or possibly remove it.

It is an important fact that connects the Kaushika of the Vedas to the Kaushika of the Mahabharata.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"Sun (Indra) taking away the shade of night (Ahalya)" How is Ahalya connected to the shade of night? Not clear.

Indra = Sun. Ahalya = night. the sex = taking away the shade. It is an allegory after all. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

So there isn't any part of the scriptures etc surrounding this story that link Ahalya more directly with the night, or Indra with the sun?Lemurbaby (talk) 11:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Kumarila Bhatta is one of the best known commentators on the scriptures. So his interpretation is note-worthy, also the interpretation is found in other refs. Some online ones: [1] [2] Indra is essentially regarded as a solar deity (see Aditya). Maybe this is why Kumarila Bhatta linked Indra to the Sun. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Need some explanation for what Chandra Rajan is.

Sanskrit scholar and poet. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"In the Sadvimsha Brahmana, Indra assumes the form of the Brahmin Kaushika and visits her" - does this text describe the real Kaushika in any way -i.e. as living with Ahalya etc?

Kaushika is not explicitly called her husband, but it is hinted in the scripture and can be deduced says Söhnen-Thieme. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw that some of my edits were reverted back, many without explanation. I have the sense it was possibly inadvertently done by making your edits from an older version of the article. Have a look at the changes I have just made now and rather than revert them back, please comment here on how/why you would like them changed if that's the case, so we can come to an agreement about the clearest way to explain the content there. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

comments in edit summary. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The reversions you made don't quite resolve the clarity issues that led me to alter them in the first place. To be specific: 1) "Allusions to her birth by Brahma are also found in the Vishnudharmottara Purana." - this doesn't fit here, because you go back and forth between talking about Ahalya's birth as natural and her birth as a creation of Brahma. Examples of these two types of creation should be grouped together. Please revise this. 2)"After her marriage to Gautama, Ahalya settles into his ashram (hermitage) near Mithila, where they practise ascetics together for several years." Again, the narrative is broken up. It makes sense to state the fact of her marriage and then talk about what happened after her marriage (i.e. practicing ascetics). The way you have it currently, this fact is "tacked on" and is not well integrated into the narrative. Please find a way to incorporate the information in a logical way or leave it out. 3)"Another version of the Brahma Purana tells that the question of Ahalya's marriage was determined through a contest." This is vague and hard to conceptualize for the reader who doesn't already know the backstory, which is why I sought to specify the participants. I would recommend that you state "through an open contest", which would allow the reader to visualize many possible participants, of which you only discuss two. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Please edit for consistent use of dashes: word - word or word—word etc

Removed &mdash. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

There is some overlinking. Link only on the first use in the lead and the first use in the body.

Done. Hope I didn't miss any. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Make sure you have a space in the references/footnotes after p. or pp. and also fix so pp. is used whenever there are multiple pages and p. for single pages

Done. Hope I didn't miss any. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Be sure to be consistent regarding italicization. The names of books and scriptures should be consistently italicized (or put in quotes), whereas foreign words really only need to be italicized on the first use. Let me know what your system is and make sure it's consistent throughout the article. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

1. Just a few changes to make, then this will be ready to go. Well done! Lemurbaby (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)