Talk:Sharabha

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sharabha/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 15:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to whether it is GA quality.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose is still the article's weak point but it is much better and GA quality

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Well done and thank you for your contributions. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 15:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• There is a one sentence paragraph (stub) at the end of the lead. This should be expanded or combined with another paragraph. Stub paragraphs are frowned upon.

The para merged. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Evolution and iconography

• Watch the tense sometimes present other times past tense.

Present tense decided. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• The writing is awkward in this section. Here's an example:

"The epic also includes Sharabha in the list of edible animals - the mrigajatis- the animal group of antelope, deer, hare, bear, ruru deer, sambar, gayal, boar, and buffalo - which was offered as part of food at dinner to guests."

This sentense is a bit confusing. The Sharabha was offered to guests for dinner? Also the phrase, "...which was offered as part of food at dinner to guests" is a bit convoluted. I would recomment rewriting: "...which was served to dinner guests."

Tough served is right, the food is considered to be an offering to the guests, which are equated to gods in Hindu tradition. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"In defining the ecological theme in Hindu medicine related to jungle and the aroma of meats, Sharabha has also been listed among the deer natives of Kashmir, Nepal, and Sikkim. However, the features explained are of an eight legged animal of the size of a camel with huge horns and conjectured as a large Himalayan goat."

Here is another example. It's not clear what the subject of the sentence is. I think you are trying to say that the Sharabha has been likened to other deer natives of Kashmir, Nepal, and Sikkim when discussing Hindu medicine. But I don't really understand the reference to aroma meats. Also using "features" as a noun is awkward. What features are you referring to? Finally it's conjected to be a large Himalayan goat or looks similar to a large Himalayan goat, or acts like a large Himalayan goat? It's not clear.

Rewrote with more detail. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

These sentences are examples of prose issues. I'll continue reviewing the article. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 16:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• In the Shiva's incarnation section there is the term, "...which exposes the gory blood-letting aspect." What gory blood-letting aspect? Is this something familiar to adherents of Hinduism? It isn't discussed in the article so I'm a bit confused by the reference here.

Remove the phrase. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• "In the Sritattvanidhi, the depiction prescribed for Sharabeshwaramurti is of thirty arms...." I rewrote this portion of the sentence in the third paragraph, see if it fits your intentions.

Added more detail. Reworded. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• "It is said that the sectarian aspect got highlighted during their reign." Watch weasel wording in this sentence. Who said it?

Reworded. Ref says it. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• There is another stub paragraph at the end of this section.

It is kept separate, as not same idea as any other para. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• I made some proe edits in this section but there is more work to be done.

Pause review

At this point I'm going to pause the review and offer some comments. I have read through the article completely and while the information is solid and the references are credible, the writing is not up to par with the GA Criteria. I feel like the writing improves in the In Buddhist scriptures and As emblem sections but the first two sections (which are the majority of the conent) are too rough at this point. I believe in giving time for editors to work on the article so I won't quick fail it, but I would recommend having someone comfortable with prose and grammar do a copy edit. I also refer you to User:Tony1/How to improve your writing, which is a little too thorough for GA standards but is still a good guide. You may want to also consider ending this review and posting the article at WP:PR to get more concentrated suggestions on prose. If you choose this course just drop me a line when the article is relisted and I'll happily review it. I'll hold the article for a week pending work and then if the prose issues are satisfied I'll continue the review. Please send me a note on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 16:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

We have requested User talk:Dr. Blofeld with the copy edit. I could not add any rplies a earlier since I was away on tour. Thanks for the pause.--Nvvchar (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've given this a copyedit, its not bad at all. I've removed some awkaward or confusing phrases or reworded them. This could still probably do with another pair of eyes by a copyeditor to ensure I didn't miss something.

:Last paragraph. This appears as contradictory to me.

Gandaberunda (Gun-daa-bhae-rundaa, from Kannada) is the emblem of the Government of Karnataka. It is an Indian mythological bird, depicted with two heads, and believed to possess magnificent strength. The interpretation provided for adopting Ganduberunda as the emblem, is that Shiva – the best friend of Vishnu – took the mythical animal form of Sharabha, with his wings identified with goddesses Durga and Kali. Sharabha hugged Narasimha and pacified him. In this process, Narasimha (Vishnu) emerged in the form of Gandaberunda. The two fought for eighteen days which resulted in Vishnu regaining control over his fierce nature. The fight ended with Sharabha tearing the two-headed bird. Vishnu attained his peaceful image and Shiva came back to his normal form. The emblem, as evolved, shows a red maned yellow lion elephant Sharabha

This seems very confusing to what was said earlier in the article. Shiva being the best friend of Vishnu. Also it somewhat seems like it is struggling to explain something which perhaps belongs much earlier in the article. I believe the emblem section should only brifely put it in its context.There is too much narrataive. Please move this detailed interpretation to where Gandaberunda is mentioned earlier in the article. Then in the final paragraph you should cite it in context but not in detail. The emblem section should specifically discuss the emblems with only a brief context not a detailed narrative if you understand what I mean. Also "shows a red maned yellow lion elephant Sharabha" is poor. How can it be red maned but yellow? perhaps The emblem depicts Sharabha as a red and yellow lion-elephant.? I can see what you mean by the logo image but it needed rewording.. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Temporarily removed the section completely. Will rewrite the section and add it in Vaishnavite views.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's better. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Continue review

• Excellent work and a speedy addition of a copy editor has helped.
• I worked on the tense of the In Maharbharta section. Watch for consistent use of tense (past, present, present progressive, etc).
• I note a new section, "In Vaishnavite views". Is this the only planned new section or will there be more?

It is not a new section. You have seen a version, attacked by an anon who repeatedly removes references, the infobox image and some paras and adds unreferenced WP:OR. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any explanation for why Sharabha is described so differently in the various Hindu traditions? Is this common among Hindu deities?

Yes. There are numerous forms and descriptions of most Hindu deities. For example, see iconography sections of Ganesha (and his iconographic forms in Sritattvanidhi) and Varahi. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• The lead seems a little light given the length of the article. Does it summarize all the points brought up in the article? If so then it's fine, if not then you may want to consider expanding.

Will rewrite the section. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for the comments and for clarifying things for me. I apologize for being away from the review for a few days. I just got two foster boys in my home and it's been all-consuming. When you feel the article is ready please poke me on my talk page and I'll finalize the review. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 23:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added a few lines in the lead. --Nvvchar (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the article again and feel as though it meets the GA Criteria. I still feel that the prose is a little rough but it is significantly improved. The article is correctly formatted, the content is comprehensive, the refs are credible and the images are topical and accurately tagged. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 15:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

SHaRaBHa=CeRB?

In my romanian language, the word for male-buck DEER is "CeRB"(pronounced "tscherb", for the female deer we have 2 words: CeRBoaica and CaPRioara-"little she goat"...CaPRa="she goat"). The similar SHaRaBa is obviously either a "special" deer, i'm talking about a FALLOW DEER("Dama Dama" is the scientific name), "cerb lopatar" ("showel deer" in my language because of the antlers shape) or is a BISON! The reason why is depicted-described in so many ways in hindu myths has to do with the fact that is not an indigenuous south asian species. The romanian-thracian word for bison is "ZimBRu", evolved into greek myths-language as "KHimaiRa/CHimeRa", a beast with the body and maned head of a lion, a goat's head rising from its back, a set of goat-udders, and a SeRPentine tail(again those 3 groups of consonants: D-S-T-Z, L-R and B-F-P-V). If we take in consideration the old portugese word "ZeBRa"(translated as "wild ass/horse") and compare it with sharaba-cerb-capra-zimbru, we can see that these common originated indoeuropean words are describing HeRBivorous hoofed animals with "SeRpent head like" tails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews (talk • contribs) 01:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=sharabha&d=4989300354253554&mkt=en-IN&setlang=en-US&w=792f2221,c607bd25

  Triggered by \bcc\.bingj\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sharabha/Cherub(a)

The only thing preventing this association is that age old imaginary East/West line.

Removal of referenced content

Regarding [1], User:Ankisur2, the content is referenced and it follows WP:YESPOV, stating the facts. The Shaiva POV is explained as well as the rival Vaishnava POV ("Vaishnava followers including Dvaita scholars, such as Vijayindra Tirtha (1539–95) refute the portrayal of Narasimha as being destroyed by Sharabha as ... "). This article has Sharabha slaying Narasimha which is popular, but also the less popular depiction of Narasimha killing Sharabha for POV. Your edits strangely mirror the edits of a vandalizing IP. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and states all the facts. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ankisur2 STOP removing referenced material without discussing. The Shaiva scriptures have vivid descriptions, including the "mutilation and murder". We can't just WP:CHERRYPICK and remove things from texts that one doesn't like. (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). You are inducing inaccuracies too. Shiva Purana does not say Sharabha embraced Narasimha, it says Sharabha seized Narasimha. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Your statement saying "sharabha slaying narasimha" is a popular article is false and inaccurate in itself,as the popular myth revolving lord narasimha has no place for sharabha.There are many such loose texts in purans,which are debated and fume controversy throughout ages like the one at hand. Clearly you hold a partisan view and have an agenda for posting these passages.I suggest you use your personal blog space for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankisur2 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Note left on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ankisur2, please present WP:RS contradicting the references or proving the references are false. Also, since Sharabha is primarily a Shaiva deity, Shaiva scriptures will have more content on him than Vaishnava ones. In the Mohini (a Vaishnava deity) article too, we state how the scriptures say that Shiva was maddened in love of Mohini, which a Shaiva may not necessarily approve of. We states all the facts, as they are. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As you might have noticed in the mediation page,I have mentioned I do not disapprove the existence of the page "Sharabha",which itself is contempt towards Vaishnava followers.The Sharabha folkore is based on Shiva and Linga puran,which are shaivate scriptures.However wikipedia is,unlike the aforementioned purans,not a shaivate scripture,or a vaishnava one for that matter.Therefore its content must be accommodating for Shaiva and Vaisnava readers alike and shouldn't contain vivid descriptions I have already objected to.An excerpt

"Sharabha then attacked Narasimha and seized him up until he was immobilized. He thus quelled Narasimha’s terrifying rage. Narasimha became a devotee of Shiva after being bound by Sharabha.[18][19] Sharabha then decapitated and de-skinned Narasimha so Shiva could wear the hide and lion-head as a garment.[1][9][20] The Linga Purana and Sharabha Upanishad also mention this mutilation and murder of Narasimha." Ankisur2 (talk • 12:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If those texts are not neutral according to you, can you provide some others that have supported your view? Bladesmulti (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

'not neutral according to you". I am confused.Is the citation neutral according to you? Also,i am not posting any separate "view". I am merely stating that even if referenced,this particular portion of the article is too vivid,unworthy of discussion on a deity and should be removed. 12:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankisur2 (talk • contribs)

Assertions such as "too vivid,unworthy of discussion on a deity" are merely expressions of a personal opinion, and have no effect in a project which is theological neutral and not censored. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You have said that There are many such loose texts in purans, now if they are not neutral according to you, can you provide some other texts that have supported your view? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree vide Orangemike. These aren't valid arguments, much less reason to delete referenced content : "which itself is contempt towards Vaishnava followers" & "vivid descriptions I have already objected to". Sorry, this is a Good Article. Please discuss your proposed contentious edits here & get consensus before they can be added. AshLin (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with RedTiger, Orange Mike, et al.

@Ankisur2:: Your objections that some parts of the article represent the Shaivite view is addressed by in-text attribution (which the article already does) rather than by deletion of properly sourced content. If you think that some other parts of the article need more precise attribution (hypothetical example: saying "Linga purana says..." instead of "Puranic literature says...") and such a case can be supported by reliable sources feel free to propose that on the talk page. Repeated deletion of content that you simply disagree with, on the other hand, is disruptive and needs to stop. Abecedare (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: I am looking.Ancient hindu scriptures are not very easily available online,even less in english

17:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime,I want to highlight the discrepancy in the Vaishnava and Smarta view section

1."Vaishnava followers including Dvaita scholars, such as Vijayindra Tirtha (1539–95) refute the portrayal of Narasimha as being destroyed by Sharabha as they consider the Shaivite Puranas as tamasic - and thus not authoritative - based on their reading of Sattvic Puranas and Shruti texts. The refutation of the Sharabha legend along with ten other Shaivite legends is discussed in a text by Vijayindra Tirtha called Shaivasarvasvakhandanam." Any reader curious enough to go through vijayandra tirtha's rebuttal finds a dead end,as there is no article on vijayindra tirtha or the text mentioned in context in wikipedia itself.The links redirect to very short text on refutation.It also looks like the page on Vijayindra tirtha existed in wikipedia,but not anymore.Thoughts? 2."Some regional South-Indian scriptures narrate that Narasimha took the form of Gandaberunda, a more ferocious two-headed bird-animal, who combats and destroys Shiva-Sharabha" Its too short.Unless one visits the page on gandaberunda,the vaishnava version on the conflict is not learnt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankisur2 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Ankisur2, Wikipedia has a concept of WP:UNDUE as well as WP:RS. Please add RS sources to maintain the quality of a GA. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk cease warring and discuss the issue on the talk page, or seek help at appropriate venues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankisur2 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Your edits are a violation of WP:RS (reliable sources), WP:OR (original research) and Wikipedia:Plagiarism (as I informed on your talk). You are copy pasting from Yahoo groups and unreliable blogs on wordpress. These are unreliable sources created by non-notable authors on the net. Urls like http://www.gururaghavendra1.org/~srsmutt/param/vijayeendra.htm#10, http://www.gsbkerala.com/vijayendra.htm do not have a word about Sharabha. "after eighteen days of struggle.Gandaberunda is described as having two heads, fearful rows of teeth, black in complexion and with wide blazing wing.As the destructive energy of Narasimha (Vishnu),it is the vAishnava paradigm of rage,like veerbhadra in shaivite scriptures." is in NOT in the earlier references and is OR. Please edit in accordance to wiki policies and familiarize yourself with them. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

1.In that case, http://web.archive.org/web/20120210092350/http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/sarabha.html doesn't qualify as RS as well.2. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=AKWvPRIkvVEC&pg=PA174&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false contains vernaculars and therefore cannot be checked for fallacy or accuracy 3.http://books.google.co.in/books?id=OoFDK_sDGHwC&pg=PA4&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false and http://books.google.co.in/books?id=CLN0F7GGecsC&pg=PA122&dq=sarabha&lr=&as_brr=3&client=firefox-a&cd=5#v=onepage&q=sarabha&f=false claim to quote but are not extracts from Shiva purana or Linga purana,but from independent work of authors,which are liable to misquoatation and misinterpretation. Shouldnt therefore texts like "shiva purana says" or "linga purana says" be removed?

1.In that case, http://web.archive.org/web/20120210092350/http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/sarabha.html doesn't qualify as RS as well.2. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=AKWvPRIkvVEC&pg=PA174&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false contains vernaculars and therefore cannot be checked for fallacy or accuracy 3.http://books.google.co.in/books?id=OoFDK_sDGHwC&pg=PA4&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false and http://books.google.co.in/books?id=CLN0F7GGecsC&pg=PA122&dq=sarabha&lr=&as_brr=3&client=firefox-a&cd=5#v=onepage&q=sarabha&f=false claim to quote but are not extracts from Shiva purana or Linga purana,but from independent work of authors,which are liable to misquoatation and misinterpretation. Shouldnt therefore texts like "shiva purana says" or "linga purana says" be removed? 09:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"The secondary references (Rao and Granoff) support the version in Sharabha Upanishad. Sarabha Upanishad translation (primary source) is given if any one wants to read the Upanishad further." Sharabha Upanishad translation reference provided isn't RS.Therefore,how can it be treated as a source material.Its a blog,and in the same spirit,my previous edits with references to blogspots(which you have edited out suggesting non-reliable source) should become admissible as well 11:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankisur2 (talk • contribs)

@talk You have been deleting references citing unreliable source.I have mentioned another reference above which is not RS as well.I have already notified that in the noticeboard,and my point has been approved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#references.2Fsharabha I hope double standards will not be followed if I now remove the reference,which is not from a reliable source.Hope to reach consensus before doing that.please reply here.Ankisur2 (talk12:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Copy-pasting my reply on Ankisur's talk for his "09:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)" comment with timestamp

"# The secondary references (Rao and Granoff) support the version in Sharabha Upanishad. Sarabha Upanishad translation (primary source) is given if any one wants to read the Upanishad further.

1. Elements of Hindu iconography of Gopinatha Rao is one of the most cited books on Hindu iconography. [2]
2. As per wiki-policy, WP:SECONDARY references (which you are calling as "independent work of authors,which are liable to misquoatation and misinterpretation") are the references that SHOULD be used. "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." These authors and books are peer-reviewed and printed by established publishers.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)"

Removed the Sharabha Upanishad reference. The same text is backed by two other secondary references. The other reference that you have referring to is Elements of Hindu iconography of Gopinatha Rao. I had already answered your concerns on your talk about the references. Probably you missed to read them. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

Two editors, which may be socks of each other, have persistently attempted to remove large swaths of cited text, replacing it with personal commentary, in violation of WP:OR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Citations

Just noticed that some citations appear to be broken and need to be fixed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Akash Bhairava is Sharabheshwara

https://www.exoticindia.com/m/book/details/book/akash-bhairav-tantram-NZC026/ In the Bhumika (Introduction/background) section, it is clearly mentioned that Sharabheshwara is only Akasha Bhairava. He is the author (Rishi) of the Akhash Bhairava Tantra. Akhash Bhairava Tantra contains the Samrajya Lakshmi Peethika (Treaties on administration of kingdom). The word kingdom is described with the word Samrajya Lakshmi - Samrajya means kingdom, Lakshmi means wealth. So a kingdom is shown as an subject similar to material wealth which needs to be maintained like otherwise it will get destroyed. It is a training manual for prince and princesses. So this page is a super-topic for this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akash_Bhairav ; they can be linked in the appropriate way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.133.6 (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Sharabha

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Article has seen many changes. It no longer meets any of the GA criteria. Dhawangupta (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Dhawangupta, please note which of the GA criteria are violated in your opinion. This is standard practice when filing a GA reassessment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

All are violated in my opinion.

Dhawangupta, please provide examples to support your opinion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Examples

1. see this statement in lead:

Vaishnava scriptures that Vishnu assumed the form of the ferocious Gandabherunda bird-animal to combat Sharabha.

Is this statement, grammatically, correct? I don't think so.

Corrected. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

2. Then, see following in section Buddhist scriptures:

The King was deeply touched by the compassion shown by the deer and thereafter promulgated a decry stating that hunting was an illegal activity in his country.

This one is also not grammatically correct.

Corrected. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

3. There are multiple uncited statements:

In Maharashtra the stone cut Sharabha idol is placed on the outer walls of the entrance gate of many historic forts.

Removed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

4. See following statement:

It also shows the Narasimha beneath Sharabha's legs as a lion-faced human with anjali (hands folded prayer gesture). (See Infobox image)

Now the attached image does not seem to show Narasimha in anjali mudra.

Narasimha has held his hands in anjali mudra over his head. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

5. See statement:

The Skanda Purana considers Narasimha as a mere irritation to Hiranyakasipu and not a threat to the world,

Now, when we look in the cited source, the text infers that Narasimha is a nuisance, but not to Hiranyakasipu, but to the Devas. Certainly it can't be inferred that the being who killed Hiranyakashipu is a mere irritation to Hiranyakashipu.

Restored as in GA version.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk

@Redtigerxyz Kindly take note.

Possibly, the article can be improved to reach Good Article status again. But, in its current condition, it requires reassessment. Dhawangupta (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Dhawangupta, thanks for your observations. Remedied.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I see a few uncited sentences, but overall the article appears in good shape to me. If the nominator won't work with us I'd be inclined to procedurally close as keep. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Dhawangupta, thank you for your interest. Please provide a detailed list of actionables to improve this article further.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.