Talk:Kubera/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: SBC-YPR (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Assessment[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Inconsistencies in tense (past perfect v. present continuous) are a recurring problem through the article. Also, the quote in the Beyond Hinduism section is jarringly out of context.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
The lead is poorly written. The initial sentences fail to provide sufficient context to the reader as to what the subject of the article is about, and the summary paragraph could be better-structured and needs to be consistent in its use of tense. Also, peacock terms and descriptions like Glorious descriptions of splendours of Kubera's city should be avoided.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
A survey of the references indicates that a wide range of literature has been used. Good work!

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Citing specific pages (as opposed to ranges) of books and articles, especially those which are used multiple times (refs 5,6) could be done if possible.

C. No original research:
The following sentence needs to be sourced: Kubera also got assimilated in the Buddhist and Jain pantheons. Also, see the comments in section 3A below.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
The scope of the article is not clear. While the hatnote mentions that the article is about the Hindu deity, the lead presents Kubera as a divine/semi-divine (not clear) figure in Hindu, Buddhist and Jaina traditions, and the details of the latter two are not discussed except for a cursory mention in the last section (which itself seems out of place). Also, the statement quoted in section 2C above needs further explanation - the Changing status and family section explains Vedic and Puranic descriptions but does not provide any information as to how Kubera was assimilated into the Buddhist and Jaina pantheons.

B. Focused:
This aspect will be reviewed after the concerns raised above have been addressed.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Generally fine, although one feels that File:Kuberadeva.jpg could use a more creative caption.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
As a result of the above, I have placed the article on hold. Editors have upto two weeks to make the necessary changes and bring the article upto GA standards, at the end of which I will review the changes made and accordingly pass or fail the article.

I will keep checking back to observe progress, and additional comments will be added as necessary. Feel free to ask for any clarifications here or on my talk page. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies:

"Beyond Hinduism" is based on Ganesha#Beyond_India_and_Hinduism, where the Hindu deity is adopted in other religions like Buddhism and Jainism. The Buddhist Vaisravana as well as the Jain Sarvanubhuti-Kubera evolved from the Hindu Kubera and inherit his characteristics. "Every Indian religion has a Kubera after the Hindu prototype" => that every Indian religion has a Kubera look-alike based on the Hindu Kubera. I could not trace references that assert how the assimilation of the Hindu Kubera in other Indian religions happened, however they do say it happened.
This article is supposed to only focus the Hindu deity Kubera, for the Buddhist part: see Vaisravana and a detailed article on the Jain Sarvanubhuti is needed. The last para of Iconography can be moved to Beyond Hinduism or removed. Suggestions?
"Glorious descriptions of splendours of Kubera's city": the thing is the descriptions of splendours of Kubera's city are glorious filled with hyperboles and similes. What I can do is put in quotes all the peacock terms that the references use, what do you think? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed this. – S Masters (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the outset, apologies on not replying earlier – I was off-wiki for a while and only got back yesterday. The article, meanwhile, looks to be in better shape now, having been through a copy-edit in the meantime. Specific replies to your comments above follow; I'll post a detailed second assessment of the article in a day or so.

Details about the assimilation may be omitted if not available, but an approximate timeline might be useful (try looking through Buddhist and Jaina histories for information). This is not a major issue as far as the GA review is concerned, but could pose a problem should you take this to FAR at some point in the future.

I have not found anything as yet and will add it, if found. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea, but it must be assimilated into the latter section and not merely moved there (see the Ganesha article itself for a good example of how to do this).

I felt that as done in "Vahanas" section in Ganesha. A short iconography of Jain and Buddhist Kubera can be incorporated here. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes are not necessary in all cases – for instance the reworded sentence in the lead is now much less problematic, even with quotes removed. Also try and rephrase superlative expressions in more neutral language – perhaps "riches" would be a better word to use than "glories and splendours".

The fact is the descriptions are superlatives (which I want to establish), so scholars use superlatives in their descriptions. Riches is an understatement. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the other points, but further improvements are required. Details shortly. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second assessment[edit]

At the outset, apologies for the delay (yet again) – I haven't been able to access Wikipedia as frequently as I ought to these days :-) Here are some more things about the article that need to be addressed, primarily w.r.t. prose and coverage:

Prose

How is Vaisravana a patronym of Kubera? And if so, how are the two equated? The Names section describes the two to be equivalent, in which case the former cannot be a patronymic. What about Pancika (the WP article suggests that he is a general of Vaisravana, so how is he equated to Kubera)? A brief clarification would be in order.

Patronym is a name derived from the father's name [1]. Kubera's father is Vishrava, so he is called Vaisravana (son of Vishrava), thus Vaishravana and Kubera are synonyms. I could not get the issue.

Pancika: Sutherland writes that Kubera is equated with Pancika -(a general of Vaisravana)- in Buddhist legends. It further mentions that some texts even Manibhadra - chief of Kubera's army - is equated with Kubera.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His face should be inclined to the left, sporting a beard and mustache... etc. (emphasis supplied). According to whom or what?

"In the Vishnudharmottara Purana, Kubera is described... [till] The nidhi treasures Padma and Shankha stand besides him in human form, with their heads emerging from a lotus and a conch respectively." is the description of Kubera from the Purana. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kubera's image is prescribed to be that of gold, with multi-coloured attributes. (emphasis supplied) Again, whose prescription?

The reference Alain Daniélou does not explicitly state which text says this.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Godhood need not be capitalised in the middle of a sentence.

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As treasure of the riches of the world, Kubera is prescribed to be worshipped. This sentence is grammatically incorrect and needs to be re-framed.

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage

The section on Beyond Hinduism and Iconography need to be modified as discussed above (or any better way that you can think of; make the changes and I will review them).

In Ganesha, while discussing Vahanas, the article also mentions the Jain iconography. as it is more appropriate there. IMO, the same applies here. "In some sources, especially in Jain depictions," => a transition from Hindu to Jain iconography and 1-2 sentences about the later.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article remains on hold for another week pending resolution of the above. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies:

A patronym is indeed a name derived from the father's name. In this case, Vaisravana would be a patronymic of Visrava, and not of Kubera. You seem to have mixed things up a bit. The rest of the prose seems to be fine.

It is vice versa. See [2] which says Vaisravana is a patronymic of Kubera. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporate the explanations into the text. For example, use "The Puranas describe his face to be inclined..." or "According to the Puranas, his face should be inclined..." etc. Ditto with the other (Alan Danielou - you can quote him as a secondary source).

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article is about the Hindu deity (as the hatnote explicitly states), the portion about Jain iconography would be unnecessary and beyond the scope of the subject (at most it could be included in the ancillary Beyond Hinduism section). This is unlike the Ganesha article which in itself is more comprehensive and encompasses Jaina and Buddhist depictions as well.

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, all names of authors and experts mentioned in the text should be Wikilinked at the first occurrence. The rest of the article is fine. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for these experts do not exist so they are not linked. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:"patronymic", the source you have quoted states that Vaisravana is a "patronymic used of Kubera", which means it is a patronymic term used to describe Kubera, not a patronymic form of Kubera itself. To clarify again, a patronymic is a name derived from the father's name. So if A derives his name from his father B, and A is also referred to by the name C, it is A which is the patronymic of B and not C. In the present case, Vaisravana, derived from Visrava, is another name used for Kubera. "Kubera" itself has nothing to do with "Visrava". Hence, Vaisravana is a patronymic of Visrava and not Kubera. Hope this clarifies. By the way, the mention of the patronymic is not absolutely essential in the lede, but if mentioned, it must be done correctly. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Used "patronymic used of Kubera" as in reference. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final Assessment[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

All the concerns raised earlier have been addressed and the article satisfies the GA criteria. As a result, I have now passed it as a Good Article, and listed it as such on the Good Articles page under Philosophy and religion. For the record, User:Redtigerxyz contributed significantly to this GA pass (with five or more major edits during the review). SBC-YPR (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]