Talk:The Mahābhārata (Smith book)

The questionable reliability of the subject
The following couple of quotations seems to demonstrate how a presumption as to the reliability of a source (the subject in particular) could turn out to be questionable!

"A portion of Śrī was born on earth for men to love: she was the blameless girl Draupadī"

- John D. Smith, tr., The Mahābhārata, p. 23

"And a portion of Sri herself became incarnate on earth, for the gratification of Narayana, in the line of Bhishmaka. And she was by name the chaste Rukmini. And the faultless Draupadi, slender-waisted like the wasp, was born of a portion of Sachi (the queen of the celestials)"

- K. M. Ganguli, tr., The Mahabharata: Book 1:Adi Parva

The subject appears to mention Draupadi as a form of Śrī, whereas Ganguli's reputed translation mentions her to be a form of Sachi; and needless to say, it is the latter mention that appears true, not the former one. Hinduresci (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:IMPERFECT
The subject of this article looks notable (please do take a neat look at the sources cited should you at all think otherwise), though the article may in fact be poorly written. However, in light of WP:IMPERFECT: "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add...." In short, poorly written article does not warrant its deletion. Hinduresci (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)