Talk:LGBT themes in Hindu mythology/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

First Pass[edit]

A nice article. A likely GA. Some problems need fixing first.

The standard line for this sort of thing: This article needs a thorough copy-editing. Misspellings. British vs American spelling. The sentences are long, trailing and dense.

The lead is a mess: Too much, and quickly getting into relating specific examples. It should touch on the header topics of the sections below. It needs references.

The body of the article is very good, although every section is a little long. An editor I know once told me to cut my story by deleting every third word. This article could probably stand a little of that. I appreciate the many examples and many references == GOOD WORK that is 90% of the GA battle.

I'm concerned by the use of the term "queer activists" like I know what that means. I can guess, but I don't know. Is the use of this term consistent with other LGBT articles? I'm more of a Religions editor than an LGBT editor, and the term was new and jarring to me, although I don't know that there's a reasonable substitute (maybe LGBT activists?)

In short: GA always requires some housecleaning to put the very best face on the article. This article is a good candidate, but it needs its face washed and its shoes shined before we graduate it.

These are just first impressions. I'll get more in depth as these basics are replied to. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I thought we might have to wait months.
I'll give it another copedit (It's written in British English btw).
I usually don't put citations in the lead if they are just replicating those in the main text - do you think they are needed here? Actually, i have removed the examples from the lead, and will put the citations in so peoplecan find the examples that way.
"Queer" is what the source used, and AFAIK is considered fine in the context of "queer theory". They are not necessarily LGBT, so i didn't want to change it from what the source said (in theory soeone could be a "queer activist" without being LGBT at least. Maybe change it in the lead, but leave the main text? I wikilinked the terms in the lead for clarificationYobMod 14:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Bahucharadevi.jpg license is questionable. No date is given for the creation of original image. "This image is in the public domain in the United States. In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1923" claim is dubious. The image is best removed, till license issue is settled. Removing it. Nvineeth has raised some issues about POV on article talk, which should be settled as NPOV is a criterion of GA. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Nvineeth need to Wikify it so it's not just a term paper. Fortunately it's easier to edit out the chaff than it would be add missing wheat. The editing needs to remove conclusions and arguments; just state the verifiable facts. That said, however, it seems that the article is within striking distance of a GA.
OK, but how is it essay-like? Which parts are chaff? There is not a single fact or opinion that didn't come from an expert source, and no attempt has been made to select which sources are used to present a thesis. I agree with Nvineeth that opinions needed to be more explicitly assigned to the source (which we have done). I think having the critical analysis first was better though, as it tells readers upfront about LGBT themes being only a minor part of Hinduism and also controversial and with difficulties in sudying. But if others disagree, i don't mind, and i added a sentence about that to the lead.YobMod 18:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Critical Analysis are a little term-papery, in my opinion. What's the point that the average reader should take home? --Nemonoman (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isee the essential points as being: 1) Transexuality is relatively common in Hindu myths compared to others. 2)Changes in gender are usually male to female. 3) An expert academic opinion of the meaning of sex changing. 4)LGBT themes in Hindu mythology are studies under the academic subject of queer theory (not just Therology). 5) LGBT themes are issues of importance in LGBT activism in India. 5) Descriptions of methods and aims of such theorists (Vanitu) and activists (Thadani), indicatingthat LGBT themes must be searched for and are not something that a typical reader would find in standard disussions of Hindu texts or even in translations of primary text. I shortened it bay removing mention of the scholars whose approaches are not described in the secondary source.11:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the "Critical Analysis" belongs to the end as per Nemonoman's edits; Its better to present the LGBT stuff to the reader in the beginning and add the "Critical Analysis" at the end. With essay like, what I essentially meant was presenting opinions as facts, and presence of adjectives, not intendeded to hurt any editor in any way. However I still see related problems and will go ahead and fix them. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oki doke. Assigning opinions is always an improvment imo. I'm sure you know by now i only miss doing this whn i don't have access to sources indicating that is not a mainstream view (eg, Redtigerxyz indicated once that sexual interaction between Agni and Soma was well-known, which is why i didn't put "according to xxx"). If you need me to check any sources i used, let me know.YobMod 10:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a simple but important task. Let's reduce the overlinking. WP:MOS says link once. We don't need six links to Ramayana.
I rmoved all the repeated links i could find.YobMod 20:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please decide in favour or in favor of English or Americanized spellings?--Nemonoman (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UK Enlish is already decided. I couldn't find any American spellings, but i changed ...ize to ...ise anyway.YobMod 18:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either I miscommunicated or was misinterpreted about "sexual interaction between Agni and Soma was well-known". Aravan is regional in nature but popular with Hijras - third sex (LBGT connotations traditional - the T part in LBGT), Bahuchara Mata, Renuka (not covered) are traditionally associated with transgenders. There is NO direct/mainstream "LBG" connotation in Hinduism. Tales of Arjuna, Shikhandi are well-known, Ila's story in retold in many Purana scriptures, Mohini-Shiva pair is also discussed in regional and some mainstream texts. The passing of the seed of Skanda by Shiva to Agni is retold in many scriptures. IMO, this article is Very very close to GA, and I request the GA reviewer to give the editor some time to tackle issues and keep it on hold till then. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The GA reviewer thinks the article is very close to GA also. I hope that the elements that need work will be identified and fixed as part of this review, which I regard as a process of improvements, not simply Pass/Fail or Hold.

I'm sort of laying out the steps this way:

  1. General copy-edits
  2. Improving style, moving to encyclopedic style consistent with MOS
  3. Attention to subtle aspects of NPOV and Undue Weight not instantly apparent to those (like myself) with limited familiarity with the subject. For example, it appears that describing Shiva as phallic god has POV aspects; also points such as those raised by redtigerxyz above and in earlier discussions suggest POV concerns that want to be considered and potentially addressed.

But it looks to me that these are items of limited scope that can be addressed with reasonable speed and clarity soon. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait on Ninveeth's opinion on POV, as he knows more about the mainstream views, which I have few sources for. I've read the text too often to see where sentences may be unclear, so i will leave any other editors changes that are done for that reason. In fact, i'm unwatchlisting this page until after the GA, so there can be no more accusations of POV or ownership or editorialising against me. I hope it passes - good luck!YobMod 12:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yobmod, I don't want to waste my time making "accusations", pls do a diff b/w the current version and the version prior to GA was started, you will see the difference. To give you an example of how subtle POVs can be, a professor ( who has been awarded PhD by none other than Wendy Doniger herself ) writes that Jesus was an homosexual, but when you are adding this information to the Jesus Christ article, will you present it as a opinion or as a well known fact? Exactly the same thing applies to this article also. BTW, if you still think that I am not acting in AGF and accusing, I can give examples ( and I think there are enough examples already in the talk page ). --Nvineeth (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Please, everybody: Calm down and assume good faith I've had dealings with all parties in this GA review and I find no evidence of intentional insults or accusations being made. Let's stay frosty. A lot of good work is being done here, and it shows -- good work from all concerned. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Findings[edit]

GA Criteria

  • Well-written:
the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
My assessment Clearly meets this criterion --Nemonoman (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Factually accurate and verifiable:
it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2] and
it contains no original research.
My assessment Since edits have removed synthesis and subtle OR, article clearly meets this criterion --Nemonoman (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broad in its coverage:
it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
My assessment A little too much detail, in my opinion, but in general the article meets this criterion --Nemonoman (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In which paras do you think there is too much detail, we can reduce the undue details or justify it. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kārttikeya and Ganesha seem to me to provide too many minor variations providing very small additional value. You asked for some Ganesha delete to be restored in the interest of NPOV, which I will do, but in my view we're down in the weeds in terms of detail. As regards GA, however, I'd rather too much detail than too little; and the amount of detail is not all that distracting, so PASS. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: -- too late -- you already made the Ganesha change and a number of other helpful changes. Thanks!--Nemonoman (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
My assessment In my opinion, the article meets this criterion, but I will wait for assessments from those closer to the communities in question. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]
My assessment Clearly meets this criterion. Recent spate of edits have been copy-edits designed to bring article more in line with GA criteria -- not an edit war. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Illustrated, if possible, by images:
images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
My assessment Considering the topic, I'm impressed that there are any relevant images at all! The main editor has done a good job here, and the article clearly meets this criterion --Nemonoman (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My assessment I will wait for additional comments, but I am ready to PASS this article as a GA --Nemonoman (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for GA. --Nvineeth (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wooo! Probably went easier without me anyway - the Shiva/Mohini/Adi paras look great! :-)YobMod 10:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do any more issues need to be addressed for GA? --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through the talk pages and Yobmod's talk page items related to this article, and I don't see any more outstanding issues requiring fixing. If Redtigerxyz is ready to give it a GA pass, then I think it's hit its mark. I'd like to wait 5 more days in hopes of getting additional feedback before giving it GA. If there are no reviews describing substnative problems during that period, I'm going to close the GAR with a pass.--Nemonoman (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final Assessment[edit]

Pass. Thanks to all for their collegial efforts in getting this page to GA status.--Nemonoman (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBT_themes_in_Hindu_mythology/GA1&oldid=1136888407"