Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ganesha

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 16:20, 5 November 2007.

Ganesha

I'm self nominating this article for featured article because it has passed a good article (since Feb 2006) review and has been peer reviewed (April 2007). It has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. The article is sourced by 247 citations. Thus in my opinion it meets with FAC criteria.--Redtigerxyz 13:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support: The article covers numerous aspects of the subject and is well sourced. This is IMO an exemplary article about Hindu devas/devis however I would suggest adding a section about the Avataras of Ganesha and perhaps using not so many quotes from books. Kkrystian 14:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Plenty of prose issues throughout. "Most worshipped" is used twice in the lead, the 2nd para in the lead begins in the wrong tense etc. "evil eye" needs to be linked. Nearly identical variant versions of the same passages are quite unnecessary. "The translation "Lord of Hosts" may convey a familiar sense to Western readers." - that, quite simply, does not make ANY sense. Tommy Stardust 17:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyeditor Finetooth has has replaced one "Most worshipped" with "Most venerated". The tense was corrected by him/her. "Lord of Hosts" sentence is removed. The translation "Lord of Hosts" is retained. --Redtigerxyz 07:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Few niggles -
The two quotations in each of the "Aum" and "First Chakra" sections are nearly identical. Is it necessary to have both of them? The readability of the article suffers because of many quote boxes. Indeed, are they necessary at all and can't the quotes just be incorporated into the prose? Especially in the "Obstacles" section, Brown and Courtright are explaining something, it is not a translation of an ancient text. They could probably be inserted into the prose.
Shouldn't "most worshipped" have a dash?
Tommy Stardust 15:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One quotation of Chinmayananda and the other of Courtright retained in "Aum" and "First Chakra". Other quotation removed.--Redtigerxyz 16:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support All issues have been addressed Tommy Stardust 20:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Nice article, surely deserves a bronze star.But i must say, not flawless. Indianescence 18:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I like it but there are some problems I'm coming across.
    • In the second para is this: "A sect of devotees, called the Ganapatya, (Sanskrit: gāṇapatya)" I'm assuming that there should be actual Sanskrit in the parenthetic as well as the pronunciation/IPA. I'd fix it but for my complete lack of Sanskrit skills. ;)
gāṇapatya is IAST for the Sanskrit pronunciation for Ganapatya.--Redtigerxyz 07:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm finding some phrasings a little vague. They may not really be a problem but they are poking at me. "Veneration of Ganesha is considered complementary with other forms of the divine." I understand what is meant by this but "other forms of the divine" is so vague I want to know if Jesus Christ is included. Maybe so but I'm thinking it's referring to the Hindu pantheon and probably doesn't include the Judeo-Christian deities.
Sentence removed.--Redtigerxyz 07:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to try doing some work on the article but I really think the things I'm finding are tweaks and copyediting chores, not hard problems with the article. I'd give it a "support" but these little things which need attention. Pigman 02:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good work. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-written article. Too many references are a distraction to the reader, though. utcursch | talk 04:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Informative and comprehensive. Nice read. Lead has a lot of references which can be avoided and may be present in later sections. There have been a few 2-line, 3-line paragraphs. Wherever possible, they can be merged into relevant bigger paragraphs. Good luck. - KNM Talk 22:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The few things I've noticed are too minor to keep me from supporting a well-structured and informative article. Pigman 00:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I found the boxed quotes to be a little overpowering in places, though others' views may differ. Nevertheless, I found it a great article. I learned a lot. — BillC talk 22:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - good read and prose smooth for me too, though paragraphs in Common attributes are a little choppy. Would it lose anything to combine them like thus? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We must thank User:Buddhipriya, User:Redtigerxyz, User:Abecedare and others for the outstanding effort they have put into this article. As a few people have mentioned above, perhaps the prose can be tightened up a notch, with shorter sentences and merging small paragraphs. It may even be "over-sourced" (soreness to the eyes) but that is hundred times better than "under-sourced." Otherwise, a wonderful article. GizzaDiscuss © 05:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Conditional Support. I forgot about this comment I made recenty on the talk page. At the moment, the article just fails 1b) IMO. Although WP:HINDU hasn't really created a standard structure or MOS for Hindu deity articles, I consider a section on temples to be almost mandatory, and Ganesha is no exception. Temples are such an integral part of Hinduism, and there are plenty of famous temples of Ganesha that can be discussed in the article. Other than that, it is still a wonderful article and if it passes FAC without this section being created, I will pursue this matter further on the talk page. GizzaDiscuss © 12:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added List of Ganapati temples link. I really wanted to talk to Gizza about the matter; but he is now on a "long wikibreak". --Redtigerxyz 15:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've removed my long wikibreak notice now, even though I still consider myself to be only semi-active. I think the Ashtavinayak deserve their own sub-section in "Worship and festivals." For all who are familiar with other Hindu deities, sages and their temples, it is like not mentioning Jyotirlinga in the Shiva article, the Mathas in Adi Shankara, Badrinath temple and Tirumala Venkateswara Temple for Vishnu and the Shakti Peethas and Vaishno Devi for Devi/Shakti. I guess I'll to change to Weak Support because it is not urgent that the section is added. But I still consider this article incomplete without at least one paragraph on Ganesha temples. Like I said above, if this passes FAC, I discuss this issue later. GizzaDiscuss © 00:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to form a small section on "Ganesha temples" with Ashtavinayak as the main focus in a day or two.--Redtigerxyz 12:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. One issue is not enough to stop me from supporting, but eventually it should be added. GizzaDiscuss © 03:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Section "Worship in Temples" written.--Redtigerxyz 08:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have now changed to Strong Support The newly created temples section may need to be copyedited though. GizzaDiscuss © 11:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pass & support

On the basis that it's readable. Leranedo 03:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Comprehensive, nicely written and nicely illustrated. Axl 19:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are numerous issues of missing citations and other MOS violations. The article could also do with a copyedit, as some sections do not read well.
The User:Finetooth , member of the League of Copyeditors has copyedited the article twice. The second being as recent as 27 Oct. See Talk:Ganesha#Copyediting.--Redtigerxyz 11:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I request Karanacs to strike out issues that s/he feels are resolved.--Redtigerxyz 14:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "honoured with affection" seems a little overly POV. Can this just be "honoured", or is there a special meaning behind the phrase that I don't know?
Replaced with "honoured".--Redtigerxyz 05:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead: I would take the last two sentences of the last paragraph and add it behind the first sentence in the lead. (delete the first sentence in that paragraph) Then make the remainder of the first paragraph (beginning with Although he is known by...) a separate paragraph. It will flow better and allow you to eliminate the second occurence of mentioning he is one of the "most-venerated" or "most-worshipped" divinities]
Any WP editor is welcome to approve the lead.--Redtigerxyz 07:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but it is not my FA and not my practice to make large changes to the text when reviewing. Karanacs 14:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But, nobody else has objected to the lead.--Redtigerxyz 06:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this suggestion by Karanacs will stregthen the lead. The only problem is that the sentences which you say are virtually the same have a small difference. One is referring to India while the other is about Hinduism. It would be awkward to say "most worshipped deity in Hinduism and India." —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaGizza (talk • contribs) 06:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done but the awkward "most worshipped deity in Hinduism and India." Maybe needs a copyedit.--Redtigerxyz 10:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is usually best practice to put other common names that the subject is know by in the lead. I would try to incorporate Ganapati and Vighneśvara in the lead (both bolded)
Each Hindu god like Ganesha has many common names. Thus, all can not be listed in the lead, but they are highlighted in the "Etymology and other names" section.--

Redtigerxyz 05:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The most common names, however, should be highlighted in the lead. Karanacs 14:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Redtigerxyz 06:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need a citation for the sentence "The name Vignesha (Lord of Obstacles) refers to..."
The association is discussed throghly in "Obstacles" section with references. The name Vignesha (with meaning) is cited in lead.--Redtigerxyz 05:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but it should also be cited in this point in case someone removes the other text (you never know). Karanacs 14:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Redtigerxyz 16:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need a citation for the last part of the paragraph describing Ganesha images ("In the standard configuration....")
ref for attributes given. Removed "as symbols of his ability to cut through obstacles or to create them as needed". part as didn't get a ref.--Redtigerxyz 11:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there is a dramatic overuse of the word "common" in the Common attributes section. Every other sentence appears to use the word.
Replaced "common" in some places in the section.--Redtigerxyz 06:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is dramatic overuse of the word "common" still an unresolved issue? --Redtigerxyz 10:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you need a separate section heading for "mouse or rat as vahana". This could go perfectly well in the "Vahanas of Ganesha" section without having a separate heading
Though the Separate section was removed, I feel that the sub-heading be retained as Mouse is the prominent Vahana of Ganesha.--Redtigerxyz 05:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't repeat the title of the article in the section headings. This means "Vahanas of Ganesha" should just be "Vahanas".
Renamed "Vahanas".--Redtigerxyz 05:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need a citation for meaning of word "priya" in Buddhi section
Citation for meaning of "priya" from Sanskrit to English dictionary. Citation for Ganesha as Buddhi's husband added.--Redtigerxyz 14:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't offset short quotes. The Coutright translation in First chakra section should be a part of the paragraph.
Expanded a bit on importance of the chakra and role of Ganesha. The quotation box was retained as translation of the text Ganapati Atharvashirsa. --Redtigerxyz 07:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:MOSQUOTE#Quotations, only citations of 4 lines or more should be offset. I haven't seen a policy that say translations need to be offset. Karanacs 14:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quotebox merged in prose.--Redtigerxyz 14:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first chakra section is very short. Can this be combined with any other section or expanded in any way?
    • The "For more details on the topic" should go at the beginning of the section instead of the end.
Done.--Redtigerxyz 05:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need citation(s) for first paragraph of Worship and festivals and for last sentence of 2nd paragraph in that section.
Citation from Grimes added for mantra. First para reworded and referenced. --Redtigerxyz 08:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need ciation for last sentence in 1st paragraph of Ganesh Chaturthi
cited web.--Redtigerxyz 06:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can format the citation to meet the WP:CITE requirements I'll cross this off. Karanacs 14:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to ref from book.--Redtigerxyz 16:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the information from Anita Thapan in section scriptures a direct quote? If so, it needed quotation marks; if not, can it be reworded a bit, as it sounds like a direct quote.
Done.--Redtigerxyz 16:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are too many long quotes in the Possible influences for the shortness of the section. Can you paraphrase one of the quotes so that there is less quoted material there?
merged smaller quote in prose.--Redtigerxyz 12:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need a citation for "The worship of Ganesha by Hindus outside of India shows regional variation."
sentence removed.--Redtigerxyz 07:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template on Ganesha goes at the bottom of the article, not in the See Also section.
Done.--Redtigerxyz 05:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's usually not normal for citations to read "For...., see..." The citation should be made directly after the material it is citing, eliminating the need to begin with "for....", leaving just the source itself (e.g. Nagar, pp. 191-195.).
    • Please use named refs when possible to reduce the number of total references, especially considering the number you have here. For example, refs 180 and 182 are the same, refs 233 and 234 are the same, etc

Karanacs 19:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concur with Karanacs about work still needed, and I was surprised to find a basic WP:MSH fix still needed after all these reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was suprised to find you not reading through this FAC carefully and realising that the WP:MSH "error" you fixed was in a section created after most of the people above reviewed the article. GizzaDiscuss © 01:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, DaGizza, when I approach an article the first time, I try *not* to read and be influenced by other reviewer comments. Karanacs was the last, and rather than retype my concerns, I added on. I'm relieved to hear that news, as I was surprised so many had missed that :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the apology SandyGeorgia. I do think many of Karanacs' concerns are valid but I strongly doubt most of the people above did a pile-on oppose.
              • To Karanacs, one of the major contributors to the article, User:Buddhipriya has strongly objected to the use of named references in the articles that he has worked on. While he by no means WP:OWNs this article, I suggest you discuss this issue with him. Unfortunately, he's on a Wiki-break at the moment but at least I digged up Talk:Ganesha/Archive 4. I could try to find more of his argument on other pages he worked on, or on user talk pages if you really want me to. Also, is your point about the "For ..., see,..."'s supported by policy and MOS, or is it just a personal dislike? If it is the former, I would be grateful if you could provide me a link to the page. GizzaDiscuss © 02:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Karanacs, thanks for your detailed comments! To address a couple of referencing issues that you raise, and which I have discussed on the article talk page before:
                1. Use of named references: By my rough count using named references will perhaps reduce the number of "notes" from 254 to ~230-240, which is perhaps desirable, but not greatly significant. On the other hand, it will introduce considerable complexity in naming of references since we will have to use "Getty52", "Getty53", "Getty55-56" etc, which may be hard to maintain in the long term.
                • I do this all the time with author and page number and it is not hard to maintain (it's actually pretty easy to take a quick look at the editing and see where it is coming from). Reducing the number of refs by almost 10% is a very, very good thing. Wikipedia:Footnotes recommends named refs. Karanacs 14:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                1. Using the "For ... see ..." gloss: The thinking behind this is to guard against scenarios in which editors change a previously cited sentence's content (in good faith) without updating the reference, in which case the sentence appears to be cited but is not really referenced. Of course, it is still possible for an editor to introduce referencing errors by changing the gloss along with the sentence, but such deliberate bad-faith editing is easier to spot and revert. I know this approach is not commonly used on wikipedia, but I think it is worthwhile to give such ideas (which AFAIK are not forbidden or discouraged by the MOS) a try and see if it works as intended. I welcome other editors input on this issue, although perhaps it would be better to discuss it on one of our talk pages. Regards. Abecedare 07:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • See WP:CITE#How_to_cite_sources. We are supposed to cite sources using an accepted citation format (which this is not), and these are detailed in this guideline. The article currently partially uses Harvard referencing (author (year if necessary), page number) but not completely. All articles run the possibility of referencing errors being introduced. That is why it is wise for several people to watchlist the articles and double-check that information is not inserted where it shouldn't be without a proper citation. Also, having the reference there allows people to check to see what is in the reference, leaving them to make that determination themselves. Karanacs 14:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comprehensive, well-written, well-illustrated and very-well-referenced article (both in terms of quantity and quality of cited works. Disclosure: I have contributed to the article over the past few months, although most of its current content is owed to User:Buddhipriya and User:Redtigerxyz Abecedare 07:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seeing that Karanacs (juding from her other FAC participations) doesn't mind her comments being crossed once they've been fixed, I'll do that now so we can keep track of what still has to be done. I will only cross obvious things, issues that have been 100% fixed, not grey areas. GizzaDiscuss © 07:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Best practice is to let the reviewer cross off his/her own comments. I don't get upset when others cross mine off like some editors do, but I prefer to do it myself so I can verify that the editor understodd what I was asking. Thanks! Karanacs 14:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • one more comment: There is also an uncited "millions of people" reference in second paragraph of [edit] Ganesh Chaturthi section. Karanacs 16:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence removed.--Redtigerxyz 07:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am combing ref as in FA Islam, to reduce the oversourcing issue.--Redtigerxyz 07:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Combing ref complete. --Redtigerxyz 10:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are definitely on the right track there, but I'd remove the "See.." and just put the references. Karanacs 13:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used "See" on lines of Islam. Probably "See" was used to avoid a blank line that rises dur to the point system.--Redtigerxyz 09:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Ganesha; there are refs for sucessive sentences like Krishan p.121, Krishan p.122 ; Getty, pp. 37–45., Getty, p. 37., Getty, p. 38., Getty, p. 40 and many more. Now Getty, pp. 37–45 takes care of all the rest of possibilities. So instead of citing every sentence; if one ref e.g Getty, pp. 37–45 is given at the end of the para; the no of ref will be reduced. IF this is permitted by WP policy; I will execute it. Waiting for other editors' reactions. --Redtigerxyz 10:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine the way it is. The issue with combining all the refs is if other information gets added to the paragraph from a different source, you may have one sentence from Getty p37 cited to a 9 page spread, which is more difficult for a potential verifier. Karanacs 13:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Comprehensive content. Do we require so many citations? Probably yes, but not sure. Anyway, the article is fine and deserve to be featured. --Bhadani (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The section heading "Rise to Prominence" does not quite fit. I would consider something like academic perspective or debate on origin. --Blacksun 13:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ganesha&oldid=1148688595"