Talk:Krishna/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 21:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I will review this article. Since Krishna is an important topic that many people are likely to be interested in, I will attempt to review this article section-by-section, starting with the etymology section and working my way down to the bottom. Then, once I have reviewed all of the sections, I will review the lead. The reason I plan on reviewing the lead last is because I want to be able to make sure that it adequately summarizes the content of the rest of the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Katolophyromai:, @Shrikanthv: Thank you. I will be one of those who respond to the GA review comments. Sorry for my slow response, I was out visiting Asian monasteries for many weeks since August. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: It is perfectly fine. I am still not completely finished with the review and, after no one responded initially, I assumed that it was unlikely anyone would respond until after the review was fully completed. I am taking my time more than I usually would because I want to make sure the review is very thorough, since I suspect this article receives a great deal of regular traffic. I still have a few more sections to leave comments over. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Names and epithets

Mostly good, but here are some criticisms:

• "Among the most common names are Mohan "enchanter", Govinda, "chief herdsman", Gopala, "Protector of the 'Go' – "Soul" or the cows"." The last part of this sentence should probably be revised. It may be better to say "Among the most common names are Mohan "enchanter"; Govinda "chief herdsman"; and Gopala "Protector of the Go", which means "Soul" or "the cows"."

• Done. - MSW

• "Some of the names may be regionally important as, for example, Jagannatha, a popular incarnation of Puri, in Odisha in eastern India." The wording is slightly confusing. It may be better to rewrite this sentence as "Some names for Krishna hold regional importance; Jagannatha, a popular incarnation of Puri, is often used in Odisha in eastern India." --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed. I have reworded it along this line but added clarification (please check). See Jagannath Temple, Ranchi. I will add a second source shortly. - MSW

Iconography

Altogether, this section is in very good shape, but, once again, I do have a few criticisms:

• "...an amorous man..." It is unclear what you mean by this. Are you using the word "amorous" as a euphemism for "ithyphallic"? if so, you should just state it directly rather than trying to be decorous. If not, you should perhaps clarify what you mean by "amorous."

• No, not "ithyphallic". Will clarify. - MSW

I did not really think that was what the article was intending, but normally "amorous" is used to refer to an emotional state, not a physical condition and, since I frequently edit articles over ancient Greek religion, where phallic symbols are abundant, it occurred to me that this might be what the article was trying to imply. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Bāla Kṛṣṇa the child Krishna" There should probably be a comma between "Kṛṣṇa" and "the child." --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed. I just took out the IAST because it is unnecessary given the Bala Krishna with comma is already wiki-linked immediately prior. It is there that IAST etc info should be. - MSW

Historical and literary sources (top section only)

This section seems to be very high quality. I have taken the liberty to correct the following minor errors:

• Mahabharata is the title of an epic poem and should always be written in italics.
• Max Müller should be written with an umlaut.
• Bhagavad Gita is also the title of an epic poem and should likewise always be written in italics. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed. Thanks. - MSW

Comment on citation formatting

I have noticed that, although the article is well-cited, the citations are not formatted very consistently. It would probably be better to have all of the citations follow a consistent formatting. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Will work on this. - MSW

Indo Greek coinage

This section is good as it is. I have no criticism for it other than what I have already said above regarding the citations.

Heliodorus pillar and other inscriptions

• "For example, three Hathibada..." The words "for example" should probably be omitted. The paragraph would flow better without them. Besides, the reader already knows that the inscriptions listed are examples, so there is no need to tell them what should already be obvious.
• "The tenth book of the text, with about 4,000 verses (~25%) and dedicated to legends about Krishna..." This sentence is not grammatically coherent. It would be better to say, "The tenth book of the text contains about 4,000 verses (~25%) and is dedicated to legends about Krishna..."

Aside from these two criticisms, this section is fine. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed and done. - MSW

Life and legends

I will cover the whole section under one heading, sicne this section has very few problems and seems to be ready for GA without any major changes.

• The fact that the section begins by introducing the ancient sources on Krishna is very good.
• "Krishna's childhood reinforces the Hindu concept of lila..." It might be better to say "Krishna's childhood has been used as an illustrative example for the Hindu concept of lila..."

• Yes. I trimmed it a bit more. - MSW

• "the tyrant king and uncle Kamsa" It would be better to say "the tyrant king, his uncle Kamsa." This will clarify that Kamsa is Krishna's uncle (since I am assuming this is what the sentence is supposed to say), not just some random person's uncle.

• Agreed. Done. - MSW

• I have once again put Bhagavad Gita into italics in a few places.

• Thanks. - MSW

• The "Inconsistencies" section is mostly good, but the first sentence of the second paragraph has a POV problem. It says: "The tenth and eleventh books of the Bhagavata Purana are a poetic masterpiece, full of imagination and metaphors, with no relation to the realism of pastoral life found in the Harivamsa." Calling the tenth and eleventh books of the Bhagavata Purana "a poetic masterpiece" directly violates WP:NPOV because not all people will necessarily agree on this. If there is even the possibility that someone might disagree, that prevents you from stating it as fact. A better way to say this would be to state that "The tenth and eleventh books of the Bhagavata Purana are widely considered to be a poetic masterpiece..." Doing so would easily eliminate the POV problem and make this paragraph easily suitable.

• Yep, done. - MSW

This concludes my remarks on the "Life and legends" section. I will now move on to the next section after that. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed datings

I have no problems with this section.

• Ok. - MSW

Philosophy and theology

This section is very high quality and interesting, but the first paragraph is rather confusing. It mentions a whole bunch of people that I have never heard of, but gives very little explanation of who these people are or why their positions on Krishna are important. Also, the descriptions of these people's interpretations are extremely vague. The paragraph says:

Ramanuja presented him in terms of qualified monism (Vishishtadvaita).[130] Madhvacharya presented Krishna in the framework of dualism (Dvaita).[131] Jiva Goswami described Krishna theology in terms of Bhakti yoga and Achintya Bheda Abheda.[132] Krishna theology is presented in a pure monism (advaita, called shuddhadvaita) framework by Vallabha Acharya.[133] Madhusudana Sarasvati presented Krishna theology in nondualism-monism framework (Advaita Vedanta), while Adi Shankara in the early 8th century mentioned Krishna in his discussions on Panchayatana puja.

You may want to add more description of who these people are and what their interpretations mean. Aside from the first paragraph, the rest of the section is very good. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Done! Shrikanthv (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Influence

I only have one problem with this section, which is that there is a "citation needed" tag at the end of the last paragraph of the "Indian subcontinent" section. All information in a good article is supposed to be verifiable. Either find a citation to support the information in this paragraph or remove the uncited paragraph altogether. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Done!, added citation Shrikanthv (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Performance arts

The third sentence of the second paragraph in this section has a few problems. Firstly, the whole sentence is really long and should probably be broken up into several separate sentences. Secondly, the last part of the sentence contains the phrase "while saving the world from all sorts of troubles," which is bizarrely non-specific and just leaves the reader feeling confused. What sort of "troubles" is it talking about? It almost feels like the phrase is phrased to be purposefully evasive. I recommend either deleting the phrase or revising it to make it less confusing. Other than this sentence, everything else in this section is fine as it is. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Changed, Found the sentence is trying to be in an "artistic" mode and was unable to check the source for correctness of the statement, so have removed the long sentences and added new text from different source. Shrikanthv (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Other religions

• I corrected a minor capitalization error in the first section. The word "Religion" was incorrectly capitalized.
• You may want to define the word "Tirthankara" because I did not know what it meant until after I clicked on the link.

These were the only issues I found with this section. Now I will return to the beginning of the article and review the lead. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Added a defn for Tirthankara. - MSW

Lead

• "...known by numerous names, such as Govinda, Mukunda, Madhusudhana, Vasudeva, and Makhan chor in affection." I would recommend removing the words "in affection" because I think it is fairly obvious that these titles are intended affectionately; they certainly are not insults.
• When the article states that Krishna is sometimes worshipped as Svayam Bhagavan, you should add a wikilink to the article Svayam Bhagavan because I had no clue what the phrase was supposed to mean when I read it.
• "These sub-traditions arose in the medieval era Bhakti movement context." I would rephrase this as "These sub-traditions arose in the context of the medieval era Bakti movement," which I think would be a more logical way of phrasing it.

Aside from these issues, I think that the lead does a good job of summarizing the rest of the article. From what I have seen, this article appears to be GA-worthy material, but I will postpone promoting it for a few more days to give you some time to address the new comments I have added here. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Done. - MSW

Since all my criticisms have now been addressed, I will go ahead and pass the article. Congratulations. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Overall review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): 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): d (copyvio and plagiarism): 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:
· · ·

Comments

1. I think that this article certainly meets the writing quality standards for GA, especially after the last few of my criticisms are addressed.
2. The article is well-cited and all "citation needed" tags have been removed and replaced with citations.
3. The coverage of the article is very impressive; it covers all aspects of the subject, ranging from the god's origins in antiquity to his present-day veneration.
4. The article does not contain any obvious bias and all POV issues have now been resolved.
5. I have been following this article for about a month now and it does not appear to have any stability issues.
6. The article contains many relevant and useful images. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Katolophyromai:, @Shrikanthv: Thank you for the hard work going through line by line, the review comments and revisions to what is a long but important wikipedia article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• @Corinne: Thank you for the GOCE effort on this article a while ago. Your diligent copyediting and suggestion were a huge help too in improving the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)