Talk:Pitru Paksha

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pitru Paksha/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References appear to be in order.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article conforms to WP:NPOV.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article appears to be stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are correctly tagged and properly captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

• There are excessive amount of bold copy throughout. Please see MOS:TEXT of what should be bold.

Per MOS:TEXT, article title and synonyms and Definition lists are bolded. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I can, just, accept the "when and where" as a glossary, but strictly speaking, it is not.

• Hyphens have been used instead of dashes. Please see MOS:DASH.

En dashes and spaced En dashes are now used. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• There is a note in the Reference section. This should be in a Note section.

Renamed to Notes. This scheme is followed by many books. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not what I meant. There was a note in the references section, so there should be both a notes and a references section. The note was: The days of Pitru-paksha are same according to the Gregorian calendar, but Pitru Paksha is the dark fortnight of Bhadrapada in the Hindu calendar called Shalivahana era that begins with month Chitra and has months beginning with the bright fortnight, but it is the dark fortnight of Ashwin in the Vikram Samwat calendar beginning on the month Vishakha with months beginning on the dark fortnight. References should remain as it was, and another section called Notes added. -- S Masters (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• There are terms which are unexplained, such as darbha grass.

grass is the explanation for darbha. Darbha is a kind of grass. Could not find a wiki-article for it. Any other jargon terms? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Numbers greater than nine should be written numerically, see MOS:NUM.

Please clarify where this applies. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

the fourteenth for people killed by arms, in a war or suffered a violet death but since it is in the "glossary", you can leave it as it is. -- S Masters (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• There are numerous grammar issues. Example: Offerings to the ancestors made both in homes as well as puja mandaps, Families may also journey pilgrimage places like Varanasi and Gaya to perform Shraddha, and Gaya considered sacred to perform shraddhas, holds a fair in Pitru Paksha. Please have a proper copy done on the whole article before submitting to GAN.
• There are also prose issues: Some families also... Some families also...'.

Summary: The article has numerous issues as listed above, in particular, language and MoS compliance. Unfortunately, in its current form, it is far from being close to the quality required for Good Article status. I suggest a full copy edit by an editor that can correct such errors. You might like to try to ask someone from WP:GOCE. I will allow seven days for these issues to be resolved, before making any decision.

My issues have been addressed. Yes it could do with a fresh pair of eyes, I think the above is actually a typo error missing vital words. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Page ranges need fixing. pp is used for single pages and both 112–6 and 61–64 are used. Aaroncrick ^TALK 20:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)User:YellowMonkey

Thanks to Dr. Blofeld, we have a new image too. Page numbers done. User:YellowMonkey also did a copyedit. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work. We are nearly there. Just one more item to be fixed. "A shraddha ritual performed on this day is considered as fruitful as one conducted in the holy city of Gaya, which is seen as a special place to perform the rite, and hosts a fair during the Pitru Paksha period.[2][4][3][9]" - There is no need to have so many references for one sentence. If the references refer to other sentences, then put each reference at the appropriate sentence. If they all refer to the one sentence then just pick the two best ones and remove the rest. -- S Masters (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Final summary: Thank you for all your hard work. I am now satisfied that the article meets all the requirements for a Good Article, and I am happy to pass it. -- S Masters (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Who and for whom

It is wrong to say that only the eldest son may perform shraddha ritual. As per the Vedic tradition, which has now been largely forgotten, women can perform shraddha.

1) Son (even one whose thread ceremony has not been done), daughter, grandson, great grandson, wife, daughter’s son (if he is one of the heirs), brother, nephew, first cousin’s son, father, mother, daughter-in-law, son of sister, maternal uncle, anyone in the seven generations and from the same lineage (sapinda), anyone after the seven generations and belonging to the same family domain (samanodak), disciple, priests (upadhyay), friend, son-in-law of the deceased person can perform Shraddha in that order. In case of a joint family, the eldest and earning male person should perform Shraddha. Where the family is living apart, each unit head should perform shraddha independently. Hindu Dharma has made arrangement so that for each and every dead person the shraddha can be performed so as to give momentum to that person to progress to a higher sub-plane. Holy text Dharma Sindhu mentions that, ‘If a particular dead person does not have any relative or a close person, then it is the duty of the king to perform Shraddha for that person’.

Daughters, wife, mother and daughters-in-law of the deceased person have the authority to perform Shraddha. In spite of this, in the current era, priests who conduct Shraddha deny their consent for females to perform Shraddha. This could be because in the earlier days the thread ceremony was performed for females, and in current era, this practice has been discontinued in all classes. Therefore, in accordance to that, even performing of Shraddha has been disallowed for females. However, this is due to ignorance and is not as per the Scriptures. In emergency conditions, however, if no one is available for performing Shraddha, then it is better for it to be performed by females instead of not performing it at all. There is a recommendation taht the female performing shraddha should place a clean cotton cloth on her shoulder while performing ‘Savya-Apasavya’

In the Shiva Purana, Sita is said to have performed Shraddha ceremony for her father-in-law out of desperation when noon was fast approaching and the ceremony had to be performed before that time and neither Rama nor Lakshmana had returned from their errands.

Please incorporate the above so that wrong practices and beliefs will not be furthered due to ignorance or for being repeated in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VIJAYA59.182.151.105 (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

what is your pramana?106.51.106.129 (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

misinformation

It seems contradictory given Hinduisms teachings of rebirth and moksha. Possibly not accepted by all branches of hinduism. Hindus do not worship ancestors neither believe in spirit worship as death rituals clearly require to cut all ties with the departed soul when all ceremonies have concluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.179.180.28 (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Poorly sourced

This article is very sloppy. In Vedic circles, evidence from sacred texts must be given to providing authenticity. No evidence is provided whatsoever. It should also be noted that Vaisnavas do not follow this practice for the reason that there is no scriptual authority to support it. 49.207.61.24 (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

You are right it is very poorly sourced. But you may be wrong regarding whether or not Vaisnavas do it. It is directly mentione din Srimad Bhagavatam 7.14.19 http://www.vedabase.com/en/sb/7/14/19 106.51.106.129 (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)and some Vaisnava Sampradayas like the Sri Sampradaya do these ceremonies as part of Daivi Varnashrama.106.51.106.129 (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Pitru Paksha/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Comment: The article is not well written and contains extensive original research. The sub-headers of the article are also not per Wikipedia good article standards. The lead does not well summarise major themes of the article. --Tamravidhir (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Article state when passed in April 2010 and today is more or less similar in the aspects that you point out (i.e. lead summary, sub-headers and inadequate referencing). @Redtigerxyz:, who took it to GA then, has credit of making many Hinduism articles into GAs/FAs. I doubt anything he has written is OR; unless it was slipped in later on by other editors. It would help the re-assessment if you were less generic and more specific. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)