The article Shaktism is about the Goddess oriented sect of Hinduism. The article recently passed the GA process. I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because IMO it meets the FA criteria - well sourced and broad in coverage. The article is expanded mostly by User:Devi bhakta, while i have just helped him do so. Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
POV: I'm certainly no expert, but the section "Misperceptions" may have POV issues, most notably the section title itself. It's not our place to judge controversy, just report on it. Lay out what the opposing sides say without being judgemental.
Opposing sides are laid out, For e.g. Other schools like Shaiva and Vaishnava, being viewed as superior (granting moksha) and the view of "serious theologians within Shaktism". Shaktism has a close relation with Tantra, but not all Shaktas practice the controversial (as viewed in mainstream Hinduism) ways of Tantra like panchamakara. Many confuse Tantra and Shaktism to be the same. "Misperceptions" aims to clear the doubts.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
You're certainly clearing doubts with wording like this:
"These prejudices are based principally on ignorance and misunderstanding – both on the part of uninformed observers and unscrupulous practitioners of the left-handed Tantric practices traditionally associated with some Shakta systems."
To my mind, that reads as editorialising in a POV manner. I'm not sure how your response above addresses this, or the inherent POV of the section title. --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It might be noted that the sentence is referenced, though a rewording can be worked on, if the reviewer insists.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Another user has retitled the section, and I agree that the new title is an improvement. I also agree with Dweller that the phrase "these prejudices" presents a POV problem, and I have accordingly changed it to a neutral phrase. The rest of the sentence, saying that misconceptions are caused by (a) outsiders' ignorance of authentic practice, and (b) some insiders' unscrupulous practices, is the scholarly conclusion of the source cited, in a 300-plus page study of the issue. Please let me know if further work is needed here. Thanks! (Devi bhakta (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC))
Comprehensiveness: Worship section seems a bit of a mess, but this may be my ignorance. It seems to me that the first two subsections are not about worship and a subsection that should be included (everyday worship, as opposed to that on festivals) is missing.
The Worship section has sub-sections about the two sub-denominations Srikula and Kalikula and their worship. "Festivals" talks about the major Shakta festivals and "Temples" about Shaktas' places of worship. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Licensing: I know almost nothing about licensing of images on Wikipedia (I'm generally an ignorant person) but the acknowledgement in the photo caption strikes me as odd. Either we can or can't use it.
That was done on request of GA reviewer.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Good luck with it. --Dweller (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I want to be as helpful as possible - this article is not comprehensive and is unencyclopedic in many ways. The "Misconceptions" (I had to correct the title, btw - there is no such thing as "misperceptions") violates WP:NPOV and is unnecessary. The constant quoting of "Bhattacharya" and presenting the rival viewpoints is not the way to write an encyclopedic article - its not a seesaw between POVs. The "History" is too short and general - "Shaktism" is different from worship of female deities, so I don't see the connection of the brief notes on the pre-Vedic practices. The explanation of philosophy is insufficient. Compared to the deficiencies of the other sections, the "South Asia" section is quite large. It is unnecessary - one section describing the practice of Shaktism in different parts of India and the world. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Bhattacharyya laid the foundation for modern scholarship in the area of Shaktism, and he is quoted as befits his looming position in the field; however, numerous other scholars, of both East and West, are also heavily quoted. As the primary writer of this article, I believe that the resulting article does accurately represent the literature and the topic.
As regards the History and Philosophy section, I would note that it is intended only to summarize the linked daughter article, History of Shaktism. Could you kindly have a look at that article and let me know if your stated concerns are addressed therein? Thank you for your input! (Devi bhakta (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC))
Re: "(I had to correct the title, btw - there is no such thing as 'misperceptions')" ==>
Comments by user:Fowler&fowler: The article consists of little more than lengthy quotes and lists. Where is the prose? Consider the first section Shakti and Shiva (as of December 27, 2007). Of the eight paragraphs in the section, seven are quotations; the sole "prose" paragraph reads, "Shakti (i.e., the Supreme Goddess as Power, or Energy) is considered the motivating force behind all action and existence in the phenomenal cosmos. The cosmos itself is Brahman; i.e., the concept of an unchanging, infinite, immanent and transcendent reality that provides the divine ground of all being. Masculine potentiality is actualized by feminine dynamism, embodied in multitudinous goddesses who are ultimately reconciled into one." I won't even bother pointing out all the problems in the paragraph because I fear I will receive the "little green check marks" response (when none will have been asked for). This article is not salvageable. The authors will do everyone, including themselves, a service by withdrawing the article, figuring out what it means to write prose, working on the prose for at least a couple of months, and then worrying about FAs and the like. Sorry to be blunt, but this article really shouldn't be here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Reply: We, the editors of Shaktism, are trying to address the concerns expressed, primarily the quote issue. We will be working on the conversion of the quotes into prose in the following days. As such, we request some time to mend the article. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I would like to commend the authors of the article for trying to write on a difficult subject such as this. However, I would like to see lots of changes too.
I am skeptical about such sentences as (and would like clarifications about the time period mentioned) From the Goddess's earliest known appearance in Indian paleolithic settlements more than 22,000 years ago, through the refinement of her cult in the Indus Valley Civilization, her partial eclipse during the Vedic period'.
This criticism is of particular concern to me. The sentence mentioned above is a summary of the History and Philosophy section -- in, particular the full, detailed article entitled History of Shaktism, which was specifically removed from the main article due to a concern that its inclusion made the main article too long. However, this comment marks at least the third or fourth time someone has noted the article lacks in historical/philosophical coverage.
Now, I am assuming that those users who take the time to comment on the article are also those most likely to read it closely -- meaning that if these people fail to notice that the History of Shaktism exists as a sub article, then casual readers are probably even more likely never to see the History article. Thus I need to ask, very sincerely: Should I stop worrying about length, and return the History of Shaktism "daughter article" back into the main article? (Devi bhakta (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC))
P.S. You note "such sentences as" ... If there are other sentences that make you "skeptical", could you kindly note them specifically so that I may properly address your concerns? Thanks (Devi bhakta (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC))
Need clarification on The religious historian V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar (1896-1953) expressed it thus:. Here, is the scholar religious minded or is he a scholar on religion?
I am not sure that I understand the distinction. Wouldn't the second by definition be the first? At any rate: Dikshitar was (in the 1920s-40s) a professor of history at St. Joseph's College, Bangalore; then (in the mid-1940s onward) Lecturer, later Reader, and finally Professorial Chair of the Department of Indian History and Archaeology at the University of Madras. He was also Honorary Reader in Politics and Public Administration at the same institution, and General Editor of the Madras University Historical Series. A posthumous bio notes that he belonged to a group of "avant-garde historians who introduced a new methodology into the study of Indian history"; he contributed "innumerable" articles on "various dimensions of Indian history" to scholarly journals both in India and abroad, including both "original treatises [and] translations." (Devi bhakta (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC))
Added the above info to the article as a footnote at Dikshitar's first reference. (Devi bhakta (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC))
I would like the prose simplified in Shakti (i.e., the Supreme Goddess as Power, or Energy) is considered the motivating force behind all action and existence in the phenomenal cosmos.
It is interesting because precisely this sentence was singled out for special ridicule by user:Fowler&fowler above. Interestingly, if you glance back through the early history of the article, you will note that it is about the only sentence from the original article that survived my recent expansion! I guess that is either a tribute to the fact I edited as much as I did, or else a condemnation that I stopped without removing more! ;-) In any event, point taken, I will completely rework this poor sentence! (Devi bhakta (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC))
As mentioned earlier by other users, the list can become prose.
I believe Redtigerxyz has already addressed this; do you have another list from the article in mind, or should I disregard this? (Devi bhakta (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC))
These are just a few examples. The same sort of simplification and clarifications are sought through out the article.
Obviously, more specific examples would be appreciated. Having written most of the article, I am probably not a good one to judge where "simplification and clarifications" are called for. In a re-write of this complexity, I need all the guidance I can get. (Devi bhakta (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC))
I will come back and take a look later when copy edits are completed.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
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.