Talk:Mandodari/GA1

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

Reviewer: hamiltonstone (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC) This article is a bit of a challenge. It does meet the GA criteria for at least three reasons:
 * It is not well-written, particularly in the sense that it does not make clear (and keep clear throughout) the status of its subject as a religious / mythological figure. The lead is ambiguous in other ways too. Take this initial phrase from the lead: "was the Queen Consort of Ravana, the ten-headed Rakshasa (demon) king of Lanka and the chief villain of the Hindu epic Ramayana." If Mandodari is a figure in a book / legend etc it should read "is", rather than "was" (which is a cue that encourages the reading that she was an actual historical figure). The phrase should also be reordered to make it unambiguously clear that it is Lanka who is the chief villain, not Mandodari: eg "is the Queen Consort of Ravana, the chief villain of the Hindu epic Ramayana."
 * I would also begin by being clearer about her status, by saying something like Mandodari is a figure in Hindu mythology, in which she is portrayed..." etc
 * The third paragraph of the lead appears to mix in one para some unrelated points - a mix of plot summary with comment on how she is portrayed ("Her love and loyalty to Ravana are praised.")


 * It is not reliable: specifically it makes considerable use of two items that appear to me to be unreliable sources in this context: an article from a popular Indian magazine, and an online article that reads very well, but there is no evidence (that I found - please correct me if I am wrong) of the website's reliability (Boloji Media). The article also uses Wheeler, a work that is 130 years old. These do not appear appropriate. In contrast Lutgendorf and Mukherjee look to be very sound sources.
 * Boloji Media is a blog like website. The author of the article - Pradip Bhattacharya is an author of Hindu mythology books as well as one on the Panch Kanya, Mandodari being one of them. About the Wheeler part, it is a translation summary of the Ramayana. I check tell about the credentials of the author of the Week article in an day or two. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Couple of comments. First, I recommend you try and use Pradip's books if they are available. However, if they are not, please leave a note on the article talk page explaining who the author is and provide some citations for their books. This will allow both me and other future editors looking at this page to be assured that the source is reliable, based on the reputation of the particular author. Regarding Wheeler, is there not a more recent translaton available? If not, we will have to live with it. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * About Pradip, his relevant book Panchkanya: Women of Substance is unavailable to me. Another biography of Pradip about his works: . The Week article is written by Dhanalakshmi Ayyer, who the magazine notes, is an associate of the Chennai chapter of Observer Research Foundation. The article (part of [Mythological] "Women of substance" series) primarily focusses more on the interpretation of Mandodari in the contemporary world, rather than her mythology. Yes, Wheeler can be replaced although Wheeler is quite well-known, particularly for this cited book. -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 16:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To this lay reader at least, it does not appear both broad and focussed. The article appears overwhelmingly dominated by what, in the case of a work of fiction, would be called "plot summary" - most noticeable in the section "Marriage and later life". There needs to be les of this and more analysis. The article also needs more reliable sourcing to back this.
 * Since she is primarily a character of Hindu mythology (Hindus consider a historical character who lived and died), the article focusses on her life story. Though she is extolled in a prayer, she is minor character in the Ramayana and there is not much analysis of the character as compared to others like Rama or Ravana. Also, legends are very important in Hindu mythology related articles. Some similar GAs about minor characters in epics: Ila (Hinduism) and Kabandha.
 * I just had a look at Kabandha. I think that article is better than this one, and it is a good model to follow. It certainly shows you have the skills to bring this to GA. It looks like DBaba did a good job with some additional copyediting. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * DBaba has started copyediting the article. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave this for any responses before I fail the article, but that is my initial view. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I am currently busy and will be able to fully concentrate on this GAN after Wednesday. I have also requested a copyedit. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am in no hurry. I will wait and see how things go. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Diannaa copyedited the article as my GOCE request. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can you explain the meaning of "got" in this sentence: "According to the Ananda Ramayana, king Padmaksha got Padma, an incarnate of the goddess Lakshmi, as his daughter."? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reworded. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm afraid that doesn't help! Give me some background here on the talk page and maybe we can work it out. Got / obtained from whom? Children are normally born - was this one not born, but created or gifted? By a god or something? Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Quoting from the reference: "The King Padmaksa performed penance before Mahavisnu with a view to get Mahalaksm! as daughter. Mahavisnu gave the King a great Phallus to realize his wish. From that a beautiful girl was born. The King named her Padma." -- Redtigerxyz Talk 10:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If that is what the source says, then it too is making no sense, and cannot answer my question. Any other sources on this? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * cut the confusing detail. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, that is better. I think we are done. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)