This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
History of Shaktism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
History of Shaktism has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is composed of the "Early Origins" and "Philosophical Development" sections of the Shaktism main article as I've recently revamped it. The only real change (so far) is that I've taken intros of several subsections and – combining them with some additional material – fashioned them into a lead. Next I need to check on reference list's accuracy and whether links need to be added (or removed). ( Devi bhakta 19:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC))
These portion of the quotation is hard to read with the additional [befitting their new adherents' more] for coherency. If the addition [befitting their new adherents' more] could be re-worded it would be nice. Done.--( Devi bhakta ( talk) 06:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
This is a long sentence. Done.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 13:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
This sentence is awkward and the initial segment was re-read to join into the latter portion. Can it be re-worded for more fluency? Done.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 05:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Done.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 05:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
In this above text, the name of Lalita-Tripurasundari should be written as Sri Lalita-Tripurasundari.
Done.-- ( Devi bhakta ( talk) 06:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
Done.-- ( Devi bhakta ( talk) 06:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
Because em dashes are visually striking, Wikipedia takes care not to overuse them. A rule of thumb is to avoid more than two in a single paragraph, unless the paragraph is unusually long or the use of more than two em dashes would be logically cohesive. Only very rarely are there more than two em dashes in a single sentence.
-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 06:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Done.--( Devi bhakta ( talk) 06:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
This is a long sentence with many sub sentences within it.
Done.--( Devi bhakta ( talk) 06:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
The name also should have the full title...Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, (even though as you have it worded for English readers this may be justifiable translation of the full Sanskrit title). The full title was given to Sir John Woodroffe automatically, so also to the first mention at least of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. Done-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 05:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
No colon needed but should be a period at end of the sentence. (again another instance of dashes to eliminate)
Change the wording to not use the word tribals but rather tribal....or tribes....
Done--( Devi bhakta ( talk) 07:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
change which to this.
(Changed to "that") Done.--( Devi bhakta ( talk) 06:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
Next to establishing context, the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article (e.g. when a related article gives a brief overview of the topic in question). It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see news style and summary style).
From Wikipedia:Lead section See also Better lead
Done--( Devi bhakta ( talk) 06:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
Done--( Devi bhakta ( talk) 16:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
Done.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 06:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Done -- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 06:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Done-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 06:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Can this sentence be re-worded more as a fact...is considered... should be the part re-done with different wording...also another dash in this sentence...as mentioned above.
Done.--( Devi bhakta ( talk) 06:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
Overall a well thought out article, but needs a few tweaks here and there. I placed it on hold as you seem to be able to perform amendments within the time frame allotted. SriMesh | talk 02:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
WOW!! You'se did an awesome job on the changes that were requested!!!
SriMesh | talk 21:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Shaktism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
History of Shaktism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
History of Shaktism has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is composed of the "Early Origins" and "Philosophical Development" sections of the Shaktism main article as I've recently revamped it. The only real change (so far) is that I've taken intros of several subsections and – combining them with some additional material – fashioned them into a lead. Next I need to check on reference list's accuracy and whether links need to be added (or removed). ( Devi bhakta 19:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC))
These portion of the quotation is hard to read with the additional [befitting their new adherents' more] for coherency. If the addition [befitting their new adherents' more] could be re-worded it would be nice. Done.--( Devi bhakta ( talk) 06:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
This is a long sentence. Done.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 13:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
This sentence is awkward and the initial segment was re-read to join into the latter portion. Can it be re-worded for more fluency? Done.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 05:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Done.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 05:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
In this above text, the name of Lalita-Tripurasundari should be written as Sri Lalita-Tripurasundari.
Done.-- ( Devi bhakta ( talk) 06:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
Done.-- ( Devi bhakta ( talk) 06:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
Because em dashes are visually striking, Wikipedia takes care not to overuse them. A rule of thumb is to avoid more than two in a single paragraph, unless the paragraph is unusually long or the use of more than two em dashes would be logically cohesive. Only very rarely are there more than two em dashes in a single sentence.
-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 06:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Done.--( Devi bhakta ( talk) 06:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
This is a long sentence with many sub sentences within it.
Done.--( Devi bhakta ( talk) 06:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
The name also should have the full title...Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, (even though as you have it worded for English readers this may be justifiable translation of the full Sanskrit title). The full title was given to Sir John Woodroffe automatically, so also to the first mention at least of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. Done-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 05:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
No colon needed but should be a period at end of the sentence. (again another instance of dashes to eliminate)
Change the wording to not use the word tribals but rather tribal....or tribes....
Done--( Devi bhakta ( talk) 07:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
change which to this.
(Changed to "that") Done.--( Devi bhakta ( talk) 06:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
Next to establishing context, the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article (e.g. when a related article gives a brief overview of the topic in question). It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see news style and summary style).
From Wikipedia:Lead section See also Better lead
Done--( Devi bhakta ( talk) 06:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
Done--( Devi bhakta ( talk) 16:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
Done.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 06:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Done -- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 06:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Done-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 06:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Can this sentence be re-worded more as a fact...is considered... should be the part re-done with different wording...also another dash in this sentence...as mentioned above.
Done.--( Devi bhakta ( talk) 06:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
Overall a well thought out article, but needs a few tweaks here and there. I placed it on hold as you seem to be able to perform amendments within the time frame allotted. SriMesh | talk 02:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
WOW!! You'se did an awesome job on the changes that were requested!!!
SriMesh | talk 21:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Shaktism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)