Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ahalya/archive1

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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:46, 23 January 2012 [1].

---

Ahalya

Ahalya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Ahalya/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Ahalya/archive2

Nominator(s): Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This GA article (since June 2011) is about Ahalya, a paradoxical figure in Hindu myth, both venerated and condemned and who has become famous in legend due to her sexual behaviour. The article recently underwent peer review with promising comments and got copyedited by User:Cwmhiraeth minutes ago. I am nominating this article for featured article because IMO, it satisfies all FA criteria after the copyedit and the peer review. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment on prose from Hylian Auree (talk · contribs)

Lede

• The opening sentence is quite long, especially for in the lede. Consider splitting it after Gautama?

As per WP:LEADSENTENCE, if someone is particularly famous for 1 particular reason, then it should be noted in the first sentence. Her primary identity is not wife of Gautama, it is her transgression and its consequences. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That is true. I just found it a bit difficult to navigate, but I agree that it is essential. Auree ★ 15:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Later on in that same sentence, it reads "the resultant curse by her husband and her subsequent liberation by Rama, an avatar of the god Vishnu." After its been split, can we place a comma after "and" here? It feels like the list goes on after "by Rama" without it. Additionally, I'm not sure how "resultant curse" links to the preceding bit.

Changed a comma to -. The curse is a result of the extra-martial coitus, which is elaborated.

Hmm, I edited to something different. Feel free to revert if you disagree. Auree ★ 15:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Just 1 thing: the article does not use the serial comma convention. It is the "without serial comma" convention, usually followed in Indian English. So removed the serial comma for consistency. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Due to her unflinching acceptance of the curse and loyalty to her husband, Ahalya is extolled as the first of the panchakanya ("five virgins"), archetypal chaste women, the recital of whose names is believed to dispel sin." – Something doesn't feel right here. I think the comma after the parentheses should be removed, and it could use some further clarification.

Do – work here?--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you feel about adding the "archetypal chaste women" bit into the parentheses? Auree ★ 15:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I meant adding it in the parentheses along with the "five virgins" bit. However, I realize that would probably look stupid. Is "archetypal chaste women" an alternative term or does it just serve to elaborate on what the five virgins are? Auree ★ 19:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"five virgins" is literal meaning. archetypal chaste women is their characteristic. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, makes sense. I tweaked it a bit and I feel it flows better--what do you think? Auree ★ 17:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It sounds better. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Later sources however, often absolve her of all guilt, describing how she falls prey to his trickery, or is raped." – It reads quite odd without a comma before "however".

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Ahalya as well as her lover Indra, are cursed by Gautama." – What's wrong with using "and" here? Also gets rid of one of many commas in the prose.

"as well as" is used as an alternative to "not only ... but also". Not only is Indra (who is the guilty party) punished, but also the innocent Ahalya is cursed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I just feel it weakens the prose. It still needs a comma in there somewhere, then. Auree ★ 15:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• "short stories as well as in dance and drama." – Comma before "as well as" for readability.

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That's from the lede for now. It is very comprehensive, but overall I found it a bit verbose and difficult to grasp in some areas. I'm no expert on the subject at hand, however, so my comments might be too nitpicky. I'll be glad to continue the review after more feedback is given. Auree ★ 19:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. After reading through it a second time, I do feel it is well written. I've made some small changes myself and will continue the review asap. (: Auree ★ 15:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Name and development - very engaging, just a few nitpicks

• "The word "Ahalya" is broken up as [...]" – I'm not 100% sure on this one, but here Ahayla should probably be italicized and the quotations removed per the MOS. Reoccurs later on as well.

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Some Sanskrit dictionaries translate Ahalya as "unploughed",[1][5] however, some recent authors, arguing that sexual intercourse is often likened to the ploughing of a field, interpret the word to mean "one who is not ploughed", i.e. a virgin; or "one who should not be ploughed", i.e. a motherly figure and in the context of the character Ahalya, someone beyond Indra's reach." – This is a borderline run-on sentence; is there any way we can split it?

Can be split before "However". --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could just tighten the sentence and remove two commas. I suggest changing "some recent authors, arguing that sexual intercourse is often likened to the ploughing of a field, interpret the word to mean "one who is not ploughed"" to "some recent authors argue that sexual intercourse is often likened to the ploughing of a field and interpret the word to mean "one who is not ploughed". Auree ★ 18:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The Brahmanas (9th to 6th centuries BCE) are the oldest scriptures to reveal the relationship between Ahalya and Indra but the Bala Kanda book of the Ramayana, a 5th to 4th century BCE epic which narrates Rama's life, is the first to explicitly mention her extra-marital affair." – Consider splitting before "but"?

Needs a "however" then. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• "conscious decision" seems a bit redundant to me. I'd remove "conscious"

All decisions are not conscious. The phrase "conscious decision" is used to emphasize her deliberate act of doing something against the gender norms. Similar eg. at [2]--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Despite the fact that Ahalya is cursed to endure several penances to expiate her sin in the Bala Kanda," – Tighten to "Although Ahalya is cursed to endure several penances in the Bala Kanda,"?

Good idea. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Also consider splitting that sentence after "illustrious woman", so that the bit in between parentheses can be reworked to prose.

Actually the mahabhaga adjective is an important contrasting adjective to the curse and related to the "goddess-like and illustrious woman" part. mahabhaga is used many times, compared to other adjectives meaning goddess-like or illustrious. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• "This interpretation contrasts with that of Rambhadracharya, for whom the word mahabhaga in the context of Ahalya's story means "extremely unfortunate" (split as "maha + abhaga")." – We already know how the word is split, so I suggest removing the parenthesized bit.

Note the splitting is different. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ohh, you're right. I didn't notice that--sorry! Auree ★ 18:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Ahalya is purified by offering Rama hospitality." Does this part rely on footnote 15? If so, that source should be cited to at the end for clarity.

Elaborated in relevant section: Ramayana, where references exist.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, though if possible, it wouldn't hurt adding a reference just to be sure. Auree ★ 18:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• "It has been argued that this later version of the tale is the result of a "male backlash" and patriarchal myth-making that condemns her as a non-entity devoid of emotions, self-respect and societal status." – Could this be reworded to plainer English?

Can't figure out how to make it simpler, without loss of the intensity. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Particularly the ""male backlash" and patriarchal myth-making that condemns her as a non-entity devoid of emotions" part, but if you cannot find a different way to word it's no deal-breaker. Auree ★ 18:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Can't think of anything. Feel free to change. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• "In contrast, Ahalya's encounter is regarded as purely erotic and not resulting in procreation, and thus Ahalya faces the ire of the scriptures." – Not sure how to reword this, but it feels a bit off.

Reworded.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• In all, a very good read, albeit a bit hard to follow at times. This might just be due to the subject at hand and me being unfamiliar with it though, and the overall writing is of professional standard. I've made a very light c/e to the section, catching mostly minor style issues and punctuation. Please check my changes. Auree ★ 20:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. I understand it will a little difficult to comprehend for those unfamiliar with Hinduism. I have similar thoughts about those astronomy FAs :) --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Creation and marriage

• "the Creator" is introduced as a new term, but I'm not sure what it's referring to here. Brahma, I assume?

The text is not clear. The Creator may mean the generic God or the particular creator god Brahma. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a fan of it, but I'll let it slide. Auree ★ 19:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Harivamsa (dated between the 1st and the 3rd century)" – Is there any way to keep the dating notation here consistent with the others?
• "When that time arrives, the sage returns Ahalya to Brahma, who, impressed by the sage's sexual restraint, bestows her upon him." – Here, writing "impressed by Guatama's sexual restraint" would probably make it clearer as to whom "him" refers to at the end of that sentence.

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Meanwhile Indra, who believes that the best women are meant for him, resents Ahalya's marriage to the forest-dwelling ascetic" – Forest-dwelling "ascetic" seems a bit POV, though the text probably implies that Indra regards Guatama as such. Could this be made clearer? Additionally, considering tightening by removing "Meanwhile"

ascetic is a fact, which is asserted by various scriptures. The implication is the right meaning. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• "However, the divine sage Narada mentions to Brahma that Gautama went around the three worlds before Indra, explaining that one day as part of his daily puja (ritual offering), Gautama circumambulated the wish-bearing cow Surabhi while she gave birth, which, according to the Vedas, made the cow equal to three worlds." – Split before "explaining"? The second part could also be reworded to reduce the amount of commas, e.g. "[...] before Indra. The sage explained that Guama circumambulated the wish-bearing cow Surabhi while she gave birth as part of his daily puja (ritual offering), which made the cow equal to three worlds according to the Vedas."

Good suggestion. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• "site of her epic curse" – Remove "epic"? It doesn't seem to add much additional meaning, unless I'm interpreting it incorrectly.

"epic" is used here as a pun: "noting or pertaining to a long poetic composition (Ramayana)" and "of unusually great size or extent"--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• As before, I've made some very minor tweaks to the section, which can be viewed here. Auree ★ 19:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Encounter with Indra: Curse and redemption

• "Indra, the "lover of Ahalya ... O Kaushika, Brahman (Brahmin), who calls himself Gautama"" – The middle part ("O Kaushika, Brahman (Brahmin)") of the quotation is a tad abrupt and confusing to me without any clarification. Is the quote necessary, and if so, can that part be omitted using a bracketed ellipsis [...]?
• Wait, who is Kaushika even? Aside from the preceding ambiguous quote, this is the first time we read about him in the article...
• "Indra's adoption of the Brahmin's form to "visit" Ahalya" – Not quite sure what this means

Reply to 3 comments: Kaushika is inferred as Ahalya's husband as Indra takes his form and "visits" Ahalya, like the Ramayana legend. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• "an allegory for the Sun (Indra) taking away the shade of night (Ahalya)" – Since "Sun" is capitalized here, how do you feel about capitalizing night? Or just de-capitalize both.

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The Bala Kanda mentions that Ayodhyan princes Rama and his brother Lakshmana and their guru Vishwamitra pass Gautama's desolate ashram" – I had to reread this a few times before I understood, but I'm not sure how to reword it (missing commas?)
• "touch her feet giving obeisance" – Reword to "give Ahalya obeisance by touching her feet" or something similar?

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The gods and other celestial beings shower Rama and Ahalya with flowers and bow to Ahalya" – Should this be "shower Rama and Lakshmana with flowers", or is Lakshmana excluded?

No... no... Only Rama and Ahalya is mentioned.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Indra is cursed to suffer imprisonment, loss of his peace of mind and to bear half the sin..." – Reword to "Indra is cursed to suffer improsonment, lose his peace of mind and bear half the sin..."?

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• "the innocent Ahalya is cursed to lose her unique quality of being the most beautiful woman, as this was the cause of Indra's seduction." – Tighten by removing "as this was"?

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Would "sexual adventure" be the best choice of words?

Adventure is used in sense of a "risky or unexpected undertaking", also to avoid repetition of encounter. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Personally, I feel the mention of one of the sons was a bit abrupt, as it is the first thing being said about any of her children.

It is more about noting Gautama's reaction here.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yea, though I feel it's still a sudden/random introduction of one of her children. Auree ★ 19:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• "However, Chirakari does not follow the order at once and, as is his habit, thinks it over for a long time, before arriving at the conclusion that Ahalya is innocent." – This could be tightened and rejigged for less repetitiveness. Something like "However, Chirakari is hesitant to follow the order and later concludes that Ahalya is innocent."

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Söhnen-Thieme considers the words "violated" and "renowned" indicate that Ahalya is not considered an adulteress here." – Missing a "that" after "considers", perchance? Also, "here" could be reworded.

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Stopping at Puranas for now. Aside from some content issues, surprisingly little to nitpick about in this section (these are my edits). The Epics: Ramayana and Mahabharata reads beautifully--my compliments! Something I noticed: in the lede, it reads "mediaeval"; however, a subsection titled "Medieval vernacular versions" appears later on in the article. This should be made consistent. Auree ★ 00:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Continuing...

• "The Puranas bring themes echoed in later works like the unsuspecting Ahalya being fooled by Indra's devious disguise as Gautama in Gautama's absence, Ahalya's defence plea, the innocent Ahalya cursed and turned into stone, the touch of Rama's feet turning the petrified Ahalya into a sanctified beautiful maiden, Indra escaping as a cat and Indra being cursed to be castrated and/or to carry his shame in the form of a thousand vulvae on his body for all to see, which are later turned into a thousand eyes." – This is one, big list-sentence. Could it be adjusted a bit to enhance the readability (maybe by using semi-colons to separate each item)?

Added semi-colons. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Gautama orders her to go to the forest and become a stone until rescued by the touch of Rama's feet." – How does "restored by the touch of Rama's feet" read to you?

Better. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Who is "Gautam Patel"? Needs clarification

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, but instead of using hyphens for interruption, use spaced en dashes (–) or commas. Auree ★ 18:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• "In this version, Rama does not have to physically touch Ahalya with his foot. The mere touch of dust from his feet is enough to bring Ahalya back to life." – Very closely related sentences; consider adjoining with a semi-colon.

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Commenting on this narrative in the Ramacharitamanasa, Rambhadracharya says that Rama did three things, he destroyed the sin of Ahalya by his sight, he destroyed the curse by the dust of his feet and he destroyed the affliction by the touch of his feet, evidenced by the use of the Tribhangi (meaning "destroyer of the three") metre in the verses which form Ahalya's pageyric." – Ungrammatical comma after "three things"

Changed to : --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Rest looks good, made a few edits as well as some minor stylistic adjustments here and here. Auree ★ 19:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support on prose and comprehensiveness. Holding off for now pending the sourcing issues pointed out by Nikkimaria below. I honestly forgot to take a look at the citation quality but I agree that it needs quite a bit of cleanup. Auree ★ 22:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Note on prose and comprehensiveness: Some suggestions still remain open but they're not nearly significant enough to hold me off from supporting. I'll say this now: I was really impressed with the article and how extensive it is. Most of the issues I could discern were relatively minor and prose related, and after seeing Mark Arsten's excellent comments being largely addressed, I'm confident that this article is of standard. Thanks for all your work, Redtiger--it was a pleasure working with you! Auree ★ 19:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments at 18:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC) from Mark Arsten: I'll try to give this a close examination over the next day or two.

• I put some non-breaking spaces in.
• The date formats aren't consistent in the references section. (July 18, 2011 and 4 December 2011).

Following first. Please let me know if I missed any. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Try to be consistent with how you abbreviate page ranges (pp. 147–148 and pp. 145–6)

Following second. Please let me know if I missed any. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Advisor.js is giving me a "Bad ISBN checksum" warning on the page, not sure what that means though.

The .js doesn't understand ISBNs ending in X.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Didn't know that, ok.

That is my guess. However, I checked. The isbn seem right. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Might want to check that the image captions line up with the MOS:CAPTIONS rules. 18:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Make sure that you're consistent with providing locations for publishers. 18:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

All locations can be removed for consistency. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Try to be consistent about the use of the serial comma. 19:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Using "no serial comma" convention. Please let me know if I missed any. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Lead looks ok to me, just a couple things: is the Wiktionary link really necessary? I don't think the last paragraph flows as well as it could, the part about "Other traditions deal with her children" seems a bit awkward at its present location.

In the PR, a editor advises to link atone (Atonement). Since an Atonement in Hinduism does not exit, the Wiktionary was linked. Reordered. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I wonder if that redlink could be redirected at least. Oh well, that's out of scope here.

• I made a few small copyedits, feel free to revert if you don't think they were an improvement. 20:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Overall I think the article is well written but I have some small comments and questions on the prose. 21:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• "a motherly figure and in the context of the character Ahalya, someone beyond Indra's reach." Would a comma after "and" make sense?

after and? Not sure... Why is it needed? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't sure, but it's ok without one, I guess.

• "They alternately state that the jealous Indra tricks Ahalya into having sex by disguising himself as Gautama or that he rapes her." Should this be "alternatively"?

oops... Good catch. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• "places her in the care of the sage Gautama until she reaches puberty." You've already mentioned that Gautama is a sage, does it need to be mentioned again?

was first mention of Gautama in the story-telling. Can be dropped. Everyone will the first line, assumed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• "explaining that one day as part of his daily puja (ritual offering)," Should there be a comma after "day"?

Changed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The Ramayana records that Gautama's ashram is located in a forest (Mithila-upavana) near Mithila, where the couple practise asceticism together for several years." Could "together" be removed here or do you think that's necessary?

They can do it living separately. Does "the couple" imply "together"? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, now that I re-read it I think it should stay in.

• "The Padma Purana and Brahma Vaivarta Purana (800–1100) describe the ashram to be near the holy city of Pushkar." Would "as" be better than "to be"?

IMO, "to be" is better. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that was just a suggestion.

• "Gautam Patel credits Kalidasa with being the first person to introduce the petrification motif." Would "as" be better than "with being"?

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are a few more questions, nothing major though. The article is looking pretty good to me. 23:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• "sage Satananda is depicted to be mocked as son of Ahalya, the adulteress." This reads a little awkwardly to me.

Satananda is mocked as a son of an adulteress. How to put this in a better way and explaining the son-mother relationship.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't think of a better way either.

• "the condensed narrative of the Ramayana in the Mahabharata, does not mention Ahalya's violation and her redemption by Rama." Not sure, but maybe swap "or" in for "and".

"and" is right, as referring to 1 sequence of events (1 unit).--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine.

• "Söhnen-Thieme considers the words "violated" and "renowned" indicate that Ahalya is not considered an adulteress here." Maybe rephrase to avoid having consider twice in the sentence.

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• In the Brahmanas section you start a couple sentences in a row with "In the...", maybe rephrase one?

any suggestions?? Can't think of a solution. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe something like "The author of the Sadvimsha Brahmana does not explicitly state..."?

Changed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Another legend, generally told in Indian folk tales, tells that Aruna," maybe rephrase to avoid having "tales" and "tells" right next to each other?

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• "She passes them off as sons of Gautama; however, her daughter, Anjani, by Gautama, reveals her mother's secret to her father." Could this be rephrased to do away with a comma? Perhaps "She passes them off as sons of Gautama; however, her daughter, Anjani, reveals her mother's secret to her father Gautama."

Needs to be reworded. Also, ambiguous "her". Tomorrow. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• "A well-known verse cited about Ahalya runs:" do we need to work "cited" here?

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• he sentence that begins "Bhattacharya, author of Panch-Kanya..." is fairly long, maybe split it up?

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• "like Sita and Savitri, this very action has made her immortal in legend." could "very" be removed?

Used for emphasis. Similar instances --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I guess that's fine then.

• "The right-wing Hindu women's organisation Rashtra Sevika Samiti considers Ahalya as the symbol of..." Maybe remove "as"

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• "especially the British colonisers and Muslim invaders" maybe wikilink "British colonisers" and "Muslim invaders"?

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe include a quote from Tarabai Shinde?

Not available in the reference on hand. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, not a deal-breaker.

• Maybe this sentence could be tightened a bit? "Like Bhattacharya, Kelkar, author of Subordination of woman: a new perspective, feels that Ahalya was made venerable due to her acceptance of the norms of conduct for women and as she ungrudgingly accepted the curse while acknowledging that she needed to be punished."

Please check. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me now.

• More comments from Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• "It has been argued that this later version of the tale is the result of a "male backlash" and patriarchal myth-making that condemns her as a non-entity devoid of emotions, self-respect and societal status." Maybe note who has argued this?

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• While historic narratives are Rama-centric, contemporary writers make Ahalya the focus of the story. maybe "contemporary writers focus on Ahalya"?

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• "most commonly through the short story genre or" Maybe "most commonly through short stories"?

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Enamoured by Ahalya's beauty and learning of her husband's absence," Not sure here, but maybe "aware of" instead of "learning of"?

IMO, "learning of" is better here.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, not a big deal.

• "and curses him, causing him to lose his testicles." I'm a bit afraid to ask: but how did he lose them? Did they just fall off or did someone chop them off?

No idea. Not very explicit. They just fall off.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This made me laugh for some reason, but I guess it's fine.

• "The Brahma Purana is a rare exception where Rama is dropped from the narrative and the greatness of the Gautami (Godavari) river illustrated." This sounds a bit awkward to me.

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• "curses her to be reduced to a mere skeleton of skin and bones." Isn't a skeleton by definition only bones?

skeleton can mean a "an emaciated person", as used here. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, that's fine then.

• "own form to ask for a sexual favour, which is flatly refused by Ahalya." Do we know more specifically which kind of favour was requested?

sexual favour: sex. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't sure if the text was more explicit.

• "In this epic Vishvamitra tells Rama that the cursed Ahalya has assumed the form of a rock and is patiently awaiting the dust from Rama's feet." comma after epic?

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• "she feasted her eyes on Rama which liberated her from her worldly existence." maybe ", an act which"?

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• "That night, when Ahalya longs for conjugal pleasure, Gautama refuses her, saying that she is in not in her fertile period." "Conjugal pleasure" seems a bit flowery, maybe just say "sex"? Also, is there a more specific target for the wikilink than Menstrual cycle?

"conjugal pleasure" are common in scholarly books [3]. It is specially used for sex between a married couple. Menstrual cycle talks about that period.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, not a problem.

• "who transforms into a cock and compels Gautama to leave for his morning rituals." not trying to be funny here, but maybe just say "Rooster" again.

Actually cock is often used in Indian English and rooster is never used. Maybe because of the slang (read vulgar) meaning, you suggesting replacement. Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, "cock" is not used very often (to mean rooster) in my experience these days with American English. I think it stood out more to me since the context involved sex to some degree.

I hope you two don't mind if I chime in here. This article is meant to be written in Indian English, so you should consider changing all "rooster"s to "cock"s, Redtigerxyz, since you are Indian and you know this best. It might also help if you could look everything through again for optimal consistency in Indian English spelling/variants--our suggestions might have affected this as well. Auree ★ 19:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Three arguments I see for not using "cock": 1. the American English cock seems to be very infamous 2. most of the readers will be of the western world 3. Since we are talking about sex, most readers are going to think about the American cock and can be confused. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I usually try to be very sensitive about Engvar issues, I certainly don't want people insisting on foreign-sounding terms in articles I write. "Cock" is acceptable here, but if there is a way to make it sound natural in Indian English without using "cock" I'd probably prefer that. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Can't think of one. Replacing with cock again. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• " Pratibha Ray's Oriya novel Mahamoha (1997) deals with Ahalya's tale." Maybe add a bit about the novel?

Will check on weekend. I know a reference that says she is portrayed as a tragic heroine in this novel. May be if this does not suffice, removing will be a better choice. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Added more info. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'm satisfied with that. I tweaked the sentence a bit.

• "only to end up cursed to become a stone with no life herself." Maybe remove "herself"?

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The "Marxist critic" Gnani, in his poem Kallihai," Does that phrase need to be in quotes?

This is a view by the author, thus the quotes. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I guess that's fine then.

• Last comment, maybe you should downcase the Ritha Devi source?

The name of chapter and journal is printed like that. So have retained it that way --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, well, if no one else objects than I guess I'm ok with that.

Well, Nikkimaria has a wiki-policy to deal with this situation. Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Auree and Mark Arsten, thanks for your constructive edits. It's getting late in India. Feeling sleepy.. Will address rest of your comments tomorrow. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'll try to finish looking over the whole article soon, but I've been impressed by what I see thus far. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Struck resolved comments. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an experienced reviewer, so feel free to tell me if you don't think my suggestions make sense. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and edits. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support At this point, all substantive issues that I could find in the article have been dealt with. I am no expert on the subject matter, but in my opinion this is FA quality. In addition, the article was quite interesting and I learned a lot. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Use consistent punctuation and spacing for shortened citations, and be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated or not

I will handle the spacing issue on the weekend. About ranges abbreviated or not (interpreted as pp. or not): Manushi (141): 4–7. (no pp.); Śrīmadvālmīkīya Rāmāyaṇa pp. 681–2. This happens due use of {{cite journal}} (no pp.) and {{cite book}} (pp.)--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No, p. vs pp. is a different issue. For abbreviating, compare current FNs 18 (pp. 141–173) and 10 (pp. 149–52). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Don't include ellipses at the beginning and end of quotes

... at the beginning of the quotes (in references) says that the quote is not from its beginning. Convention as used here. WP:MOS is not clear on the issue. In text, I have not used ... in beginning or end eg. "nobility of her character, her extraordinary beauty and that she is chronologically the first kanya" (Changed) --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Use dashes for ranges always

Done. Fixed dashes by javascript. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Don't need retrieval dates for convenience links to print-based sources like Google Books

Done. Books do not have retrieval dates. However, they are retained for newspapers as I do not if the articles were printed or not. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for publishers or not, whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not, etc

(changed) ISBN is as printed in the book; hypenated or not is the book's choice. Locations removed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Don't write titles in all-caps

The titles are as printed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but per MOS:ALLCAPS they should be corrected (for example FN 24). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• FN 22: formatting needs cleanup

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Check for consistency in wikilinking

Please give an example. Unclear. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

For example, The Hindu is linked in FN 84, but is not linked in FN 67. It should be linked either on first appearance only, every time, or never. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first, whether initials are spaced or unspaced, etc

Format is Last, First. In case in some (generally South Indian) authors, no last name exists eg. K. Santhosh, Ritha Devi etc.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - too many inconsistencies in source formatting at this point, and I didn't get all the way through. Please do some cleaning up here. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments: Auree, Mark Arsten, Nikkimaria. Will work on it over the weekend. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Note - I was asked to check the changes made to the source formatting. I still see some inconsistencies in things like page range notation (e.g. FNs 6 and 12 vs. FNs 10, 11 and 13) and lack of spaces after full stops (FN 17). Here are some other things I noticed Auree ★ 19:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry. I could not fully understand page range notation issue. FN 6 is formatted using {{cite journal}} (so not pp.), FN 12 using {{cite book}} (with pp.). The convention followed is that the common part in the end page is not repeated. eg. 12 to 19: 12-9, 12 to 22: 12-22, 146 to 148: 146-8, 1 to 7: 1-7 --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Overall I'm not a fan of how the pages are being notated, especially in short citations when the page range is exceedingly large.

Most long ranges are translations or long stories, which are summarized or linked online article pdfs. Any specific page ranges I need to address? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Some short citations also have commas before the pages (after the author names) while most of them don't.

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Some initials don't have full stops.

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• FN 29: check author name notation.

P. Ram Mohan is his first name. No last name. P. is not initial, but the shortened name of his village. This is common in South Indian names. I have added the first name in the "last" parameter in {{cite book}} as it does not show first name if last is blank. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Why is a location indicated only for FN 42 (might be missing others)?

Missed one. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• FN 74: consider using a spaced en dash instead of the slash.

Done. It was as printed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Don't include designations like Pvt. Ltd., and Inc. when listing publishers

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Not a fan of how some dates are listed either.

Please elaborate. Convention is "Month dd, yyyy". --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

And more inconsistencies such as these. Overall citations aren't bad, but they are still somewhat messy. Auree ★ 19:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with this analysis. Good work has been done, but some more is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and patience. I am sorry but I tend to miss a reference or two in formatting. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Getting there, but some still need attention: 23, 81, 87, Mukherjee reference entry...Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ref 23: What is needed? Ref 81 is complete: No more info (including isbn) available, Author has no last name. Ref 87: Chapter name has a /. Mukherjee: ISBN as printed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

23 has italicization issues, 81 uses a hyphen instead of a dash. Others seem to have been corrected. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Ref 81 done. Ref 23 uses templates cite book and cite web. Italics is done by them. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

(I'm traveling and unable to offer more comments than the ones below; more importantly, I'm unable to follow up, and the FAC delegates may choose to ignore my oppose.) Although there are many prose errors in the article, the outstanding issues are those of coherence and, related to it, inconstancy of register, both insinuating that the source material has been inadequately digested. I would recommend that the article be reviewed by someone from the India project (such as user:Saravask, who has written a number of FAs, user:AshLin, or user:RegentsPark) and/or someone from a mythology Wiki project. The FAC delegates could invite them.

• Some issues I noticed in the very first sentence:
  • "In Hinduism?" ("In Hindu mythology" or "In Hindu religious literature" would be more accurate.)
    • [4] "In Hinduism" is used in defining Indra. If anyone prefers the other variants, I am not opposed to it. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
      • One source is enough? Many more sources use "Hindu mythology" as any search will show. Wikipedia's own Indra article uses "Hindu mythology." Your nomination statement above describes Ahalya as a paradoxical figure in "Hindu myth." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
        • For the record, I had added "Hindu mythology" [5], but someone else changed it to "Hinduism". I just can't keep reverting whatever any one changes in the article, just because I didn't write it. "Hinduism" was also correct. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Yes, you can. You are the nominator. It's your job to make sure the text is FA worthy. "Hindu mythology" is by far the predominant usage in the secondary sources. An encyclopedia, a tertiary source summarizing the consensus among secondary sources, has to comply with predominant usage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • In the list of other-languages names, Sanskrit, Thai, and Malay have scripts (Malay uses the Latin alphabet), whereas Tamil has a transliteration. Why the inconsistency? And why is the IAST pronunciation listed in the middle of these?
    • The scripts are added by users other than me. We can remove all except IAST and Sanskrit as done in Ganesha. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
      • You are the one who nominated the article. Can't blame it on others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Gautama is more commonly associated with Gautama Buddha and in fact redirects to it. Why then is the link Gautama Maharishi presented as "sage Gautama." It will cause confusion.
    • Gautama, in context of Hinduism, is the sage Gautama. [6], PURANIC ENCYCLOPAEDIA p. 285 by Mani, Vettam, [7] --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
      • It might or might not be (what you say) "in the context of Hinduism," given that Gautama Buddha is one of the dashavataras (ten avatars) of Vishnu and likely more important than a sage, but it is the context of Wikipedia that concerns us here. Gautama redirects to Gautama Buddha. To then write Gautama Maharishi as sage [[Gautama Maharishi|Gautama]] is confusing.
        • [8] "Gautama Maharishi" is hardly used and a term seems to be popularized by Wikipedia. [9] Most books call him Gautama. Buddha is never called "Gautama Buddha" in Hinduism. I would actually start a move request for Gautama Maharishi to Gautama (Hindu sage) or Gautama (rishi). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Your plans for page moves notwithstanding, you still need to disambiguate the name "Gautama Maharishi" (or "Gautama (sage)" OR "Gautama rishi") from the redirect Gautama-->Gautama Buddha in the first instance of its use in this article. "Sage Gautama" is not enough, because many people consider the Buddha to be a sage. In fact his common appellation Sakyamuni is translated as the "Sage of the Sakyas." Find some other say to disambiguate. The problem is that you are trying to say too much in one convoluted sentence, and are not able to pull it off. Consider not introducing "Gautama" right away. There is no reason why he has to be in the lead sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
            • Gautama has to be there in the lead sentence. Ahalya is often described as a rishi-patni, wife of a sage. How about rewording as "In Hindu mythology, Ahalya is the sage Gautama's wife, who was seduced by the king of gods - Indra, thus cursed by Gautama and subsequently liberated by Rama, an avatar of the god Vishnu." or similar. About disambiguating Gautama as "Gautama Maharishi", "Gautama Maharishi" hardly used in academic sources [10]. "sage Gautama" [11] generally uses the Hindu sage. Interestingly, the Gautama in "Gautama Buddha" also means the Hindu sage Gautama [12]. Gautama is a patronymic of the Buddha and Sakyas in general. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
              • Regardless of the reasons you offer, I don't see any evidence in the sources that "Gautama" is essential. In fact, of the 12,000 books that discuss, "Ahalya," and "Indra," approximately half mention Gautama and half don't. We can certainly add Gautama in a later sentence and pare down the lead sentence, which has become quite unwieldy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
                • "half don't" is not accurate. The search result is flawed. Some examples which have Gautama, but appear in "half don't" list [13], Myth and mythmaking (a major reference in the article), [14] (which misspells Gautama as Guatama), [15] (Gautama as alternative Gotama). "half don't" also has result about Yoga Vasistha's Ahalya (a queen) and Indra (a Brahmin), which is inspired by the tale of our Ahalya (the rishi-patni) and Indra (Heaven's king) and allusions to Indra as one who violated Ahalya, "a wife of a saint" [16] (rishi-patni is used in this text). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The expression "is primarily known for" is generally applied only to historical figures, not to mythological ones. (One doesn't see "Zeus is primarily known for ..." (do a Google books check)
    • {http://books.google.co.in/books?id=yGoYAAAAIAAJ&q=%22is+primarily+known+for%22+mythology&dq=%22is+primarily+known+for%22+mythology&hl=en&sa=X&ei=p8MST6q-HoHDhAfb1MWiAg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCTgK} "primarily known for" used for Agni. [17][18] "primarily known for" used for Bibical figures--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
      • See my reply below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "sexual encounter?" this is atypical language for mythology- or history-of-religions discourse. Did she seduce Indra, allow herself to be seduced? Or did he violently force himself upon her? If the latter two, "seduction" is a better choice. (The language used here is important and generally indicative of understanding of source material.)
    • If one reads ahead, para 2, this is explained. There is no one account of what happened. It can be seduction or rape or . --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
      • But one can't read ahead. It is the lead sentence! It is the first encounter (if you will) of a reader with your text. You can't assume that we will read ahead to paragraph 2 before proceeding to sentence 2. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
        • We can't editorialize by adding "seduction" or "rape". --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
          • You are editorializing by using "sexual encounter." "Seduction" is used in over 1,500 book titles that tell the Ahalya story; "sexual encounter" is used in precisely four! "Encounter" introduces it own meanings: a hostile meeting, a momentary meeting, a chance meeting, meanings that may or may not be a part of the Ahalya myth. "Sexual encounter," especially, in contemporary usage implies equality of sexual initiative between the participants. This is not the case in most versions of the Ahalya myth. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "god-king" is usually applied in the Indian context to figures such as Rama or Krishna, who ruled over human subjects, but were simultaneously divine. Indra, however, was the King of Gods, dwelling in heaven, and something quite different. (On Google books, "King of Gods, Indra" returns 3,670 books, whereas "God king Indra" returns 213
    • Many books like [19], [20], [21], [22] do use "god-king" for Indra. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I had just produced 213 books that used "god king." What was then the point of producing four? I'm suggesting "King of Gods" is more commonly used (by 3,670 titles in fact). See your own quote in defense of "In Hinduism" above. It describes Indra as the King of Devas (gods). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "the resultant curse." "resulting curse" is a better choice. "resultant" implies some inevitability.
  • "curse by her husband." -->"curse imposed on her by Gautama"
    • Done, but since we are talking about a specific curse "the" is needed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "liberation by Rama" Since we don't know what the curse is, "liberation" is confusing. "lifting of the curse by Lord Rama" is better.
    • Replaced with "redemption". Not just "lifting of the curse", also Lord will be a Hindu POV. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Sure, you can leave out "Lord." For the rest of my reply, see below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "an avatar of god Vishnu. This is really not needed as an average reader is even less likely to have heard of Vishnu and can glean the same information from the Rama link.
    • The association of Rama with Vishnu is important as the "human" epic hero Rama becomes "divine" with this connection. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • PS at the beginning of the second sentence: "unflinching?" "Unflinching" in its contemporary sense alludes to an internal process. She may have submitted to the imposition without outward protest or without shrinking back (i.e. flinching), but that is not the same as unflinching, which these days implies "steadiness." (This is off the top of my head. I could be wrong.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
    • [23] cites "unflinching courage". Unflinching is used in the same sense. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm aware of that sense. Unflinching courage, unflinching gaze, all have aspects of steadiness, but "unflinching acceptance" of a curse which, in the popular version of the myth, turned Ahalya into a rock makes less sense. At the very least the register (of "unflinching" here) is inappropriate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
        • [24] "unflinching acceptance" seems to be a popular expression. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
          • I said that "unflinching" usually has the implication of steadfastness or resolve continuing through time. All your examples have that meaning: "unflinching acceptance of mystery and disillusion," "unflinching acceptance of the burden of history," "Unflinching acceptance of human finitude," and so forth. The two foremost references in the English language (OED and Webster's Unabridged) offer the following examples: 1) A fresh element of resolute, unflinching, persevering determination. 2) Yet he is‥determinedly persevering, unflinching as a foe. (OED) 3) lived a life of unflinching probity 4) an unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account (Webster's Unabridged). The unflinching acceptance of a curse makes less sense. A curse is usually uttered out aloud when it is placed on a person. Where is there time to be unflinching, or unwavering? Predictably Google books searches for "unflinching acceptance" curse turns up empty. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
            • All this is now moot. I just discovered that "unflinching acceptance" is a direct quote from some papers by P. Bhatacharya. We can't have it without quotes in the lead. The expression is also not that memorable or precise that it can only be quoted, but not paraphrased. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
              • Yes it is. It is given with quotes in the relevant section "Assessment and remembrance": 'It is this "unflinching acceptance" of the curse that makes the Ramayana praise and venerate her'. "unflinching acceptance" is a common expression used in academic sources. If quotes are needed again in the lead, they can be added. The implication "the implication of steadfastness or resolve continuing through time" is intended in the article. About the curse, the curse here (throughout the article) does not mean only the imprecation, but also "evil or misfortune that comes as if in response to imprecation" [25][26].--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
                • You certainly cannot remove the quotes in the lead (regardless of whether the same words are quoted in a later section). It is plagiarism, no ifs ands or buts. If "unflinching acceptance" is, as you say, a common expression, then it is easily paraphrased in the lead (where quotes are frowned upon.) In any case, you can't just use "unflinching acceptance," you have to add "according to author P. Bhatacharya" or "in the words of author P. Bhatacharya." I do understand the curse implies the sentence and not just the uttering of it, but in this instance, in (by far) the most popular version of the myth, Ahalya is turned into a rock. Where is there time or state to show unflinching acceptance? I think at this point you are arguing for the sake of arguing. The expression doesn't make sense, its register is not right for the lead, and even if it were, it would need to be quoted with the author's name, all of which is unnecessary in the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
                • Reworded. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid, I don't have time for protracted dogfights. If you truly believe that, by producing an obscure example or two, "primarily known for" can be applied to Ahalya (when there is no precedence in the literature of it being applied to Indra, Vishnu, Shiva, Zeus, Minerva, Noah, Satan, ...), so be it. Let others be the judge. And "redemption?" No. A curse is lifted or removed. Redemption means something quite different. The article remains full of such unconventional expressions, which to me indicate incomplete understanding of the sources. Please also indent your replies above properly so that they can be distinguished clearly from my examples. This is all I have time for. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Equating Indra et al. to Ahalya, primarily known for one event is not the best comparison. As one goes through the references, the term "redemption" is often used in the context of Ahalya online examples. If one understands the sources and commentary by scholars, it is not just about lifting of the curse, it is about destruction of the sin, a theme concurrent in all narratives. As in many of our past encounters, we can agree to disagree. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be consistently misinterpreting what I'm saying. Added to that, your remark about past encounters makes me wonder if you're taking my criticism seriously.

My apologies if "past encounters" hurt you or gave you the impression that your comments were ignored. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• It is not the "primarily" that is the issue here, nor even "known" (which here means "familiar" or "recognized" (see OED on-line edition, 2012)). It is the "for" which is the problem, and which here means "on account of" or "because of." It suggests causality. Causality, however, cannot bridge mythological events and real ones. In other words, Ahalya is known/familiar, not because of her seduction, but because the story of her seduction is widely read.

• "primarily known in Hindu mythology" works, Right? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• As for "redemption," I'm simply responding the the construction of the sentence. You introduce the "curse." The counterpoise to the imposition of a curse is its lifting, not redemption. The redemption may have occurred, but it is irrelevant in the sentence because you haven't told us anything about sin. There are many such errors appearing throughout the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Reverted to liberation. Liberation was right. "liberation from a curse" is often used. [27][28][29],"Angiras cursed him and changed him to a big serpent and he was promised liberation from the curse" (Puranic Encyclopedia p. 40), [30][31][32]--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• (Lead, sentence 2). "Due to her unflinching acceptance of the curse and loyalty to her husband, Ahalya is extolled as the first of the panchakanya ("five virgins"), archetypal chaste women of whose names the recital is believed to dispel sin."
  • (General remark) The same issue of causality again. The mythical cause (acceptance, loyalty) is linked to real world effect (elevation to first among five virgins). This needs to be stated differently, without the causality. In fact, I have merely explicated here what others above have alluded to as "sounding a bit off."
    • The causality argument seems to ignored by many writers. The style of writing is consistent with their style. "Ahalya subsequently became the epitome of the chaste wife, unjustly accused of adultery, and her proverbial loyalty to her husband makes her one of the five exemplary chaste women daily invoked by Hindu wives." (Dictionary of Hindu Lore and Legend) "(Sita's) nobility, loyalty and restraint have been a source of strength, guiding Hindu families for centuries", "Interest and active participation in matters beyond their homes was noted for Draupadi, Tara ..., but they were not held in greater esteem on that additional account than Sita ... " (Mukherjee), "It is the nobility of her character, her extraordinary beauty and the fact of her being chronologically the first kanya that places Ahalya at the head of the five virgin maidens." (Bhattacharya). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
      • PS It can easily be the other way around; in other words, the need to idealize compliant virgins was the cause and the construction of the myth the effect. I'm sure there are readings which interpret the myth to have been constructed during a time of increased patriarchal control (and increased subservience of women) in Hinduism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
        • As per scholars, "increased patriarchal control" lead to the stone motif. Everything else is not said by any Ahalya scholar. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "unflinching." I have already expressed my reservations about its inappropriateness above.
  • "first of the panchkanya ("five virgins")" is ambivalent. What does it mean? First chronologically (in mythic time)? First in importance to the ritual? First name to be recited? Most virginal?
    • All. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "of whose names the recital is believed to dispel sin" This is archaic, was archaic in the late 19th century, and is archaic in Indian English. Change to ", the recital of whose names ..."
    • Different people have different ideas. For the record, it was changed to the way it is during the FAC by someone other than me. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • What does the recital of names of virgins have to do with dispelling sin? The allusion is too vague. What kind of sin? If I steal a mango and lie about it, how will reciting the names of virgins help? The average reader is clueless here. In other words, if you can't clarify the allusion, and make it meaningful, it is best to not mention it in the lead where space is it at a premium.
    • "What does the recital of names of virgins have to do with dispelling sin" is like asking why a certain prayer gains you favour of God. . Members of other religions may consider it absurd, this is what Hindus believe. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment — What a beautiful article and interesting read. Easy to support this once concerns raised by Fowler and Nikkimaria are settled. Sorry that I can't offer deeper critique—don't know much about how this type of article is supposed to be done. Saravask 05:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Two weeks in, this FAC appears stalled with several opposes on several issues, and the review is quite lengthy. Addressing issues raised and coming back fresh in a few weeks will give this nomination a better shot. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.