Talk:Maitreyi/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 10:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Hinduism or Indian history but this seems to be a fascinating subject so I'll give the article a review if I may. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments: At present, some of the language veers into slightly non-neutral territory, particularly when dealing with issues of religion and spirituality. For instance, statements like "She was a spiritual person dedicated to the worship of God" reads as a bit too adulatory and could be rephrased. Moreover, shouldn't the term "God" link to an article on Vedic theology or something of that nature? Another example of this is the wording about the fact that she was "able to discuss the highest spiritual truths of life"; again, this wording appears to suggest that there is an objective validity to Vedic concepts of the "spiritual truths of life", which isn't a neutral perspective. This could definitely be rephrased to avoid this problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The above sentences have been deleted as the reference was not proper. Nvvchar . 15:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Related to this question of neutrality, I worry that Maitreyi's biography is presented uncritically. The amount of detail about her life seems astonishing for someone who lived thousands of years ago! How do we know that this information is historically accurate? What are the textual sources from which this information was obtained and when were they written? Let's get some source criticism in here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * More sources have been added and relevant texts have been mentioned. Appreciation section has been added now.-- Nvvchar . 15:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd recommend adding more citations into this article. For instance, there is a tendency only to place a citation at the end of a paragraph, whereas ideally there should be one at the end of every sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A number of additional books of reputed authors have been added. Nvvchar . 15:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The images used are fine but could perhaps be improved. Do we have any images depicting Maitreyi herself? Moreover, with the Sarasvati image could we improve the caption by describing when the image was created? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * One img has been deleted because of poor quality.  Nvvchar . 15:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is quite brief and I suspect that it could be lengthened. For instance, surely there is more information on the reception and impact of Maitreyi in modern India and Hinduism? We could definitely do with some information on the historical sources from which her life has been reconstructed; we give her biography but don't explain where that biographical information originally comes from. This is not a prerequisite for passing at GA level but should be borne in mind, particularly if you want to take this article on to FAC in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Issues have been elaborated now. Date have been revised as there is no acceptable dates. Nvvchar . 15:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. All issues have been addressed by me and User:Ms Sarah Welch. Substantially expanded too. Will be happy to comply with any additional comments. I hope it meets your expectations. Nvvchar . 15:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Further comments: As you have made some significant changes to the prose to the article, I shall give it a re-read through and see if there are any additional points. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Was Yajnavalkya a "Hindu sage"? As I understand it, Hinduism did not exist during this period but is a later development that emerged from the Brahmanical response to Buddhism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * He was a Vedic period sage. Clarified. Nvvchar . 05:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am okay with this change. But "Vedic Hinduism" is a well accepted terminology, see Witzel for example. Etymologically, the first use of the English-language terms Greek and Greek philosophy are traceable to 14th century, the terms Christianity and Christian philosophy is traceable to early 16th century, the terms Buddhism, Zen and Buddhist philosophy to 18th century, and so on. The term Buddhist, amongst other things, includes all literature and scholars before the word Buddhism appeared in 18th century, same has been the practice with respect to the terms Hindu and Hinduism. Yajnavalkya is referred to as an ancient Hindu sage (see Judith E. Walsh (2006), An Anthology of Bengali Domestic Manuals, ISBN 978-8190227230, page 235). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "She was the second wife of the..." according to whom? This could be reworded to say something like "According to the x ancient text, she was the second wife of the..." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarified with a reference. Nvvchar . 05:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The lead does not summarise the wider contents of the article, as per WP:Lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Summary from the text added in the lead. Nvvchar . 05:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Should "Brihadaranyaka Upanishad" be italicised throughout or not? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably it is to be done only once in the artcile. Nvvchar . 05:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Standardise the references. We currently have Frits Staal's book being listed in a manner dissimilar to the other citations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Frits reference converted into a standard format. Nvvchar . 05:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "Maitreyi's early life is unclear"? Where's the citation for this? Every statement made in the main body of the article needs a citation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sentence deleted. Nvvchar . 05:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The prose needs some serious attention to improve its clarity. "In Grihya Sutras of Asvalayana," - what is this? Remember that most readers won't know much about all of these Vedic texts. Make sure that they are correctly linked and italicised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Now linked. Nvvchar . 05:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "According to Robert Van De Weyer..." Who is he? Why does his opinion matter? The same goes for Max Muller. Make their identities explicit so that the average, non-expert reader won't have any problem in understanding. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Explained.


 * . Thanks for the additional review comment. We have now addressed all issues. Nvvchar . 05:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

There are still a fair number of issues here. While there have been improvements in the use of sourcing, the prose really isn't up to GA quality. There are still references to specialist terms (for instance, "the Madhyamdina and Kanva Vedic schools") which are not linked or explained, and I'm not sure that a non-specialist reader would be able to fully understand a lot of it. Sections such as "Maitreyi-Yajnavalkya dialogue" switch from past to present tense and back again. There are various instances or poor or incorrect grammar and punctuation. The references are not formatted uniformly. This being the case, I would not be happy passing this as a GA at this time, and so I will fail it for now. I would suggest that you take the article to Peer Review to ask for an un-involved editor to take a look at the prose before nominating it as a Good Article again. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * May like to re-review. Renominated after review by Guild of Copy Editors. Nvvchar . 04:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)