Talk:Ganesha Purana
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance for this Project's importance scale. |
 |
Ganesha Purana was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.
Date of review: 2007-03-12 |
 |
An entry from Ganesha Purana appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on February 9, 2007. |
 |
[edit] The importance of critical editions
As the article section on Source Text explains, the lack of a "critical edition" for the Ganesha Purana means that there is no single version of the text that is considered authoritative. For that reason I think it is important in making citations to indicate which edition is involved, as things like line numbers and even chapter organization is different among different editions. To appreciate this problem, consider what it would be like if there were no single, authoritative version of the Harry Potter books. For each book there might be variant versions. In some versions Harry might be called Hugh, or might have different adventures. Perhaps in some versions characters like Ron might not appear at all, or may be replaced by different characters. Indologists try to cope with these mazes by having consensus projects that examine multiple editions and use scholarly methods to try to determine what the variations have in common, and what relationship variants have to one another. The current article section on Source Text will try to keep track of the major editions that are available to the modern scholar. If you know of any edition that is not cited, please add it along with enough reference information so a person could obtain the physical text if they wanted to. Without examining the actual edition in your own hands it is impossible to determine how that edition varies from others. This is a tedious but important step in puranic work.Buddhipriya 02:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article review
I believe this is an interesting topic and could eventually become a Good Article with hard work. However, the current state of the article falls short of GA standards.
- Well written. The structure and flow of the article is not clear at first reading. The article may be confusing to readers with knowledge of the general topic. Overall, it needs to be rewritten with a general reader in mind. The lead needs some serious work so it complies with WP:LEAD. The writing and flow are the weakest elements of this article.
- Factually accurate and verifiable. This article still needs to be better sourced. Some of the claims that could be potentially disputed are not cited. Example areas are the second paragraph of the "Significance" section and the first paragraph of the "Date of the work" section.
- Broad in its coverage. Needs more information about its relevence in modern Hinduism and how the texts are used. Otherwise provides an impression of spotty coverage, but this may be a result of the writing than the content.
- Neutral point of view policy. This articles adheres well to the NPOV policy.
- Stable. This is a stable article.
- Images. This article could use an image of an old manuscipt of the work and/or Ganesha. However, this is not a critical concern.
Fail. This article fails the GA nomination. A lot of work improving the writing is required. It needs more citations for its claims. The scope of the article needs to be slightly more comprehensive. Vassyana 09:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
