Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dali (goddess)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 22 September 2020 [1].

Dali (goddess)[edit]

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right! This was my first GA, way back in early 2018. It's come a long way since the GA version, and I think at this point I have to stop being a coward and just do the FA nom. I've scoured the internet for every available source, and I'm pretty sure this is as comprehensive as I can make it without actually learning Georgian (and even then, the most important Georgian source, Elene Virsaladze's Georgian hunting myths and poetry, is available online in a high-quality English translation published by the Georgian National Academy). For sources which are not freely/immediately available online, I have access to PDFs of most and can email copies to anyone who wants to do a source check.

The evolution of Dali is an incredible testimony to the plasticity and transformation of myth. To some authors, she represents evidence that classical Georgia borrowed mythemes from classical Greece. To others, she is an example of the mistress of the hunt, an archetype found in stories across Europe. After Christianity came to Georgia, she was sometimes regarded as a demoness. No matter the interpretation, she remains uniquely herself: haughty, demanding, and seductive. To quote John Mulaney: Dali is a bitch, and I like her so much. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Copyright issues
  • The statue of Prometheus is protected by copyright as there is no freedom of panorama in Georgia.
  • Swapped for a Russian postage stamp. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Display issues
  • Image captioned "Horns of the Bezoar ibex" would look better moved up, as it currently breaks the next heading
  • It doesn't do that on both my work PC (IE Explorer) and home laptop (Chrome), not sure why it's doing it to you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Ishtar and Circe statues would look better side-to-side, which would allow easier direct comparison and avoid the sandwiching/breaking of the "Western European" heading that I am seeing in the current setup. This can be done with {{multiple images}} (t · c) buidhe 00:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with the horns picture thing, I'm not getting any sandwiching issues, and Ishtar doesn't break the Western European figures header for me. I can take screenshots to show you what I see if you want? As for using the multiple images template, I'm not sure it makes sense to put the two together since they're from different sections (but I'm open to suggestions). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buidhe, I'm working from a totally different PC today and wound up seeing the issues you'd mentioned above; no idea why I never saw it on my other ones but oh well. I've moved the horns up to avoid the header breaking and have tweaked the Ishtar caption enough that it no longer breaks the following header. I mucked about with galleries and multiple images but couldn't get one that looked nice (the Circe image is quite a bit taller than the Ishtar one so they look a bit silly when placed side by side). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on sources (not a source review)
  • Some are broken: Khidasheli 1982, Kveselava 2002, Camuri 1993, Virsaladze 2007 (t · c) buidhe 00:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weird, let me have a look at what I've done there. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, those should all work now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Camuri 1993 is also broken. (t · c) buidhe 21:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed it as well. Thanks for your quick response to my ping :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buidhe, sorry to ping you again; I added a new fair-use image at the bottom based on a news story I hadn't known about before. Can you confirm the rationale is satisfactory? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure, there's next to no commentary on the proposed sculpture's appearance so I'm not sure "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", as required by NFCC. (t · c) buidhe 00:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expanded the description a little. IMO it adds to the understanding that the fountain is literally based around Dali as a central figure, and they just...took her out and put a rock with goats on it in their city square. Not a hill I'll die on if it kills the pass though. Hm. The news articles I cited also carry a photo of the final ibex-only fountain; would it make more sense to include both, therefore demonstrating the significant difference in appearance to the reader? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue with that is that the other image would also be fair use, but it's hard to say what understanding of Dali it would be communicating. I am still not sure about the statue/fountain image so I will ask Nikkimaria, who knows more than I do. Would you mind saying if this fountain image (the last one in the article) meets WP:NFCC? Thanks in advance. (t · c) buidhe 06:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the current rationale is sufficient to support its inclusion. I'm not super-happy with the other fair-use image either - the current tagging is intended for cases where some aspect of the work itself is the subject of commentary, not the subject. (Plus the rationale states it's the only fair-use image in the article). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've pulled the fountain image based on this feedback. Would using {{Non-free character}} work better for the Dali image? She's not from a cartoon or comic, but the image serves to provide a visual to go with the physical description of her as a character, which does form a significant part of the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest the generic non-free tag instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*Just to make sure, that'd be {{Non-free fair use}}? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens Lallensack[edit]

This is very interesting, and well written. I'm not through yet with reading. For now I have some first questions:

  • I don't quite understand the part on epithets in "Etymology and epithets": "Dali and her equivalents were also known by various epithets reflecting their numerous mythological roles." However, no mythological roles are mentioned in the list of epithets that follows, and the roles of these epithets do not become clear. Furthermore, the "Dali of New Year's Eve" is not listed here at all, but only later in the "Primary motives" section. Which makes sense, since the epithet is only the name, and the role is discussed in the motives section. Not sure, but maybe remove the word "epithets" from the section title, so that the reader will not search at the wrong place, and mention the "Dali of New Year's Eve" for completeness?
  • Basically that paragraph is just meant to be a list of her different names. There aren't really any significantly distinct mythologies associated with each name. I reworded it a bit anyway and added the New Year's thing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was a bit confused about the use of past tense. In contrast, the article states that the cults are still existing?
  • No, I don't think it says that at all. Remember that post-Christianization her mythological role is reduced more to that of a spirit or a demoness rather than a goddess actively being worshipped. Some elderly hunters still believe in Dali, and for most other modern people she's a cultural/mythological figure they're aware of. For comparison, picture a salty old sailor earnestly talking about mermaids - he might legitimately believe in them and even be superstitious about angering them, but he's not part of a mermaid cult per se. Same deal with Dali. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the explanation. I think it would be very helpful to somehow include this information at the beginning of the article, or in the lead. Just for readers lacking the context, like me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's already the final part of the lead: Her story remains an important part of Georgian culture. Though most younger people treat her as a mythological figure, some older hunters still consider her to be a real figure that one might encounter deep in the forest. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this is not enough to get the right picture (at least it was not for me). It does not become clear that Dali is not worshipped by these older hunters who still believe in her. Maybe add to the lead that christianisation had transformed Dali from her original goddess-like nature into a malicious spirit? Knowing this from the start would help much with understanding the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead already mentioned that as well, but I expanded on it a little more. Hopefully that helps? I'm not sure how much more clear the other part can be. It reflects the sources exactly: some old men still think she's a real thing you might encounter if you go deep into the untamed wilderness. No indication of continued worship or "cult" activity is mentioned in the source, so none is mentioned in the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be great, if possible, to have something about the sources. How do we know about this mythology? One Georgian ethnologist is briefly mentioned. Are there also older texts or something similar?
  • Mostly it's a lot of oral history and analysis of text fragments. I could put in a paragraph about that. Unfortunately any further detail, if there is any, is likely to be found in Georgian sources I don't know of and couldn't read if I did. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A sentence that states that most is known from oral traditions (maybe aso mention that ethnologist here?) and text fragments would already help a lot I think. Just imagine a reader without any prior knowledge on this topic … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I definitely see how a like, "history of study" section could be useful. I'll probably do that on my night shift in a couple days. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, managed to get a couple of paragraphs; the article now begins with an "Origins" section and I moved the etymology & epithets into a subheader of it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • praying that God would cut Dali's hair in return – which god, the Christian god?
  • That was recorded in 1971, so likely the Christian god (the source doesn't say for sure). I'll reword it a bit to make the post-Christianization date clear to the reader. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not known if there are any surviving artistic depictions of Dali contemporaneous to her period of prominence. – what is her period of prominence? Anything known about the history of this goddess? What is the earliest known date when this goddess was worshipped?
  • That phrase is basically just a cheat to say I couldn't find a single non-modern image that depicts Dali. No idea if the Georgians just didn't make any permanent ones or what. When I was writing the article a few years back, I emailed Prof. Tuite asking for any images he knew of. The magazine scan from the top of the article was the best he could offer me, and he does this for a living, so I have to assume there just isn't anything known, for whatever reason.
    As to the rest, I unfortunately don't have that information, at least in the English-language sources that were accessible to me. I'll double-check Tuite and Virsaladze, but I don't recall either mentioning any solid details about the deep history of her worship. The closest thing was Tuite's speculation that she may have evolved from the Proto-Indo-European dawn goddess Hausōs. The impression I got from all the sources is that there's no solid archaeological evidence, so everything is linguistic and sociological speculation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but if so, does this sentence comply with WP:OR? I mean, do you have a source for the statement that "it is not known if there are any surviving artistic depictions"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately I don't have a source that specifically says that. It's simply a complete and utter absence of any historical images of her, or even the mention of any such images, in any source at all. It's a lack that seems to be characteristic of Georgian mythology; I've never found any historical images for Q'ursha, Amirani, Samdzimari, Apsat, or Lamaria. I could reword to "it is not clear from available sources whether there are any images...", which is a little more hedgy? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side note, in the process of double checking for sources that might discuss images, I came across a few more legitimate-looking sources that I didn't find on my initial scouring, so I've put those aside for a closer look on night shift. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm well, there could be a Georgian source that specifically says there are no such images? If so, then "it is not clear from available sources" is incorrect; also, "source" is ambiguous (the image itself would also be a source). I feel we are on thin ice here, and would opt for removing the sentence completely. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, it's possible there's an older Georgian source that mentions images that somehow neither Virsaladze or Tuite ever noticed or mentioned in any of their comprehensively researched works on Dali, but I doubt it. Tuite writes in English but he speaks and reads Georgian, so he has that capability even if I don't. I sent him an email asking if such a thing existed to his knowledge. Last time we talked he was a very quick correspondent, so hopefully I'll have an answer soon. I do think removing the sentence makes the following bit about the chalice a bit abrupt - right now it goes like, "We don't know if there are any images of Dali. This dude thinks this thing shows her, but this other guy isn't so sure." The reader learns that there's an uncertainty, so the second guy being unsure makes sense. Removing the first sentence just leaves "This guy thinks this cup is Dali, but this other guy isn't so sure," which leaves the reader thinking 'okay, and?' ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • considered the Trialeti Chalice, a Georgian artifact from approximately the 2nd millennium BCE – so the 2nd millennium BCE was a period of prominence? Is there any evidence for this, or is this just speculation by a single researcher?
  • It's just the one guy who thinks it could be Dali. I mentioned the other guy who thinks it's a generic "mistress of beasts" archetype to make a point that it's speculation. It's not meant to imply anything else about Dali. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tkashi-mapa is a redirect to this article. Does that mean that this article is supposed to cover not only the Svan Dali, but also her equivalents of other ethnic groups?
  • Yes, in the same way that Inanna covers both Inanna and Ishtar. Virsaladze treats all of the northern forest/mountain hunting patrons - Dali, the "forest woman", Tkashi-mapa, etc - as one figure interchangeably, so I followed her lead. The only one I singled out for her own article was Samdzimari, who's kind of Dali-adjacent, but with enough significant differences that she's clearly her own thing. (And who Virsalazde doesn't treat as interchangeable with Dali). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But then, isn't the article quite biased against the Svan variant? The equivalents are only introduced in the "Caucasian equivalents" section late in the article. This article seems to be about the Svan variant only, and merely compares with the other variants. If you say the other variants should be part of this article, shouldn't they get properly introduced right in the "Etymology" section, and also mentioned by name, in bold, in the lead (and should the whole "Caucasian equivalents" section/its content come much earlier)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this bit in the lead makes the scope fairly clear: She is prominently attested in the stories of the Svan ethnic subgroup in northwestern Georgia, but other groups in western Georgia, such as the Mingrelians, had similar figures considered equivalent to Dali. It's written spotlighting Dali, but...mythologically speaking, the other ones are just local palette swaps of Dali - same description, personality, habitat, stories, just with a different name and occasionally other small touches. Only Samdzimari distibguishes herself as a fully distinct goddess, with her explicitly demonic origin, weird post-sex transformations, and oracular powers. The Inanna article handles the issue the same way, noting the Inanna/Ishtar equivalence in the lead and using Inanna throughout except where highlighting an Ishtar-specific chunk of myth. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but the Inanna article has both variants introduced and explained in the etymology section at the very beginning of the article. Why not do the same here? Why not include an etymology of Tkashi-Mapa as well? Why not mention Tkashi-Mapa in the lead, bolded, as is done for Ishtar in the Inanna article? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've put TM in the lead, bolded. There's no etymology section for her because I never found any sources discussing the etymology of her name. It seems to be a literal translation of "queen of the woods" or "sovereign of the forest", but no one ever seems to get into the origins of it. As for the organization, I still think it fits better under "mythological parallels", because then it flows from "similar Georgian figures" outward to other cultures. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • more to follow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ("a bead, ring, or charm") – when this is a citation, shouldn't we mention the author?
Done. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this story, the name of the child's father and the fate of the child are never given. – Why "in this story", are there other stories where they are mentioned? Or can "in this story" be removed?
  • Yeah, in the Amirani story that follows, we know the dad was a married mortal hunter and the baby grew up to be the culture hero Amirani. Both the dad and the baby are relevant characters. In contrast, in this story, Dali's just randomly giving birth, negligently drops her baby for some reason and some guy passing by saves it from a wolf, then annoys Dali by not sleeping with her. We have no context for who dad is, and the baby isn't mentioned again; its existence is basically setup for the actual plotline, which revolves around the hunter. She might as well have dropped her hankie. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In contrast, Virsaladze found the change from singular goddess to coven of spirits to be a confirmation that Dali had been relegated to a secondary role in Svan hunting mythology; and As Christianity became more prominent in Georgia, many pagan beliefs were altered or appropriated to fit Christian ideology. – is there any hint when this did happen? A very rough estimate (e.g., the century) would be very helpful.
  • I'll review the sources and see if there's anything that gives dates relative to Dali, although as usual I don't think there are. I know Georgia was first preached to in the 1st CE, then officially converted in the 3rd, and between the 5th-10th CE Christianity really became fixed in the country with the development of the Georgian Church. I'll see about integrating that. ♠PMC♠
  • Evidence indicates that Christianity arrived in Georgia in the third century, and I've inserted & cited that. After that, the mythology gradually gets adapted to fit in with Christianity. Unfortunately, because of the lack of written evidence, it's nigh-impossible to assign any kind of chronology to the alterations, even at the level of centuries. Fortunately, I found a source that speaks to that, which is included in the "Origins" section at the top. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It has been suggested that the Proto-Indo-European dawn goddess Ausos is a possible ancestor of Dali, thereby relating her to several similar goddesses descended from Hausos – Ausos or Hausos?
  • Whoops, I'd fixed one instance of that issue but not the other. All consistently now written as Hausōs. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • capra caucasica – should be capitalised (Capra caucasica). Also be consistent whether or not Capra is abbreviated. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! I appreciate the push, I think the article looks even better now with all the extra content you prompted. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kaiser matias[edit]

I reviewed this back when it was at Peer Review, and remember then encouraging it to come to FAC. I'm really glad it's here now, and will be happy to give it another review. I'll post some comments shortly. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, but wanted to have a chance to properly go through it. As noted I had previously reviewed it at PR, so only have a few minor comments here relating to language use:
  • It may be worth including the Georgian-language (and Mingrelian; they are the same spelling) version of "Tkashi-Mapa": ტყაში-მაფა. Note that the Georgian article uses the spelling "ტყაშმაფა" (Tkashmapa, or Tqashmapa). If you include it in the note there that should be enough.
Done ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Racha and Kakheti regions..." Racha is linked but Kakheti isn't. I would link both.
Oops, I think an earlier version may have linked Kakheti earlier in the article. I've fixed it so both are now linked. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like noted above, I would also include Georgian-language versions of words like "Dalis panjara" (დალის პანჯარა) in a note or in parenthesis or something. I'll also be honest and say I'm not sure of the MOS standard for something like this, so if I'm way off-base here please let me know. I just feel that for foreign-script words and phrases the original should be included for names like that, especially for languages like Georgian which can have multiple transliterations and original spellings are important for pronunciation and so on.
For Dalis panjara and dalelukdune the original Georgian isn't in either source, so would it still be kosher to include it? Neither is Dæl Ešxwamiš, but I think that's Svan. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think including original language names should be an issue, but like I said I'm not familiar with how MOS handles it, and couldn't find anything in my quick look. But unless someone does note it to be an issue, I think it should be fine. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I want to check I got the transliterations right before I stick them in the article, so I emailed Prof. Tuite so make sure. I should hear back from him by tomorrow and then I'll make the changes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked with Prof. Tuite. He confirmed the spelling for Dalis panjara since it's Georgian, and says the Georgian script spelling for the Svan phrase dalelukdune is probably right but can't be 100% sure without knowing which Svan dialect it is. I threw both in. He also said the correct spelling for Dæl Ešxwmiš is probably not worth adding, because it uses some Svan letters in a characterset that most people won't have, so it wouldn't add much to the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dælil k'ojas khelghwazhale". I believe this is the transliteration of the Ossetian language title, is it not? It would be good to clarify that.
Tuite mentions it's Svan, but you're right, I'll mention that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's great you got in touch with Tuite, who is definitely an authority on the language issue. And I'll trust what he said to be accurate, so my concerns are all addressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may be Svan, my apologies. Not familiar with their language, so just thought it was Ossetian (they have the letter "æ"). Kaiser matias (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely Svan, the Ossetians didn't much care for Dali. They had only a generic "forest woman" - their loss :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that I think it would be good to go. Impressive work. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments, both here and at the PR so long ago :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. I'll give it one more read through to ensure I haven't missed anything, but am leaning towards supporting. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! For what it's worth in terms of article quality/accuracy, Prof. Tuite was kind enough to look over the article last week, so I made some adjustments then based on his feedback as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, that's great you got in touch with him. He would definitely be someone who knows what I was asking about, so if he gave his approval then I'm happy, and will support. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Spicy[edit]

This is a fascinating and impeccably written article, one of the best I have read in a long time. I am fully willing to support based on the quality of the prose (with the caveat that I don't know anything about Georgian mythology - but I see above that it's been reviewed by an academic who specializes in the subject area, so I assume that it's comprehensive and accurate). I have two minor quibbles:

Thanks, Spicy (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spicy, thank you for your kind words :) I was quite anxious about the FA process at first but everyone has been so lovely, it's actually been a really fun experience. I've fixed the tur issue - I could have sworn I'd already done it to the point I was getting the weirdest deja vu when inserting the fix, but in any case it's done now. As for Konstantine Bregadze, I'm comfortable calling him a subject-matter expert. He's an associate professor and is on the faculty board for humanities at Tbilisi State University and has published a reasonable amount on modern Georgian literature ([[2],[3]). The translator, Irma Ratiani, is a TSU professor - it's possible that Cambridge Scholars was simply an easy way to get an English translation published? I can't imagine many English-language publishers would be otherwise eager to publish the translated proceedings of a Georgian conference on a somewhat-narrow field of study. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the authors' credentials check out so I'm satisfied. Excellent work. Spicy (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG Support[edit]

I usually start at the bottom and look at technical stuff before reading.

I have some gadget or script or something that detects HarvRef errors, and it is returning errors at:

  • Virsaladze 1976 ... Harv error: link from CITEREFVirsaladze1976 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Camuri 1993 ... Harv error: link from CITEREFCamuri1993 doesn't point to any citation.
And these errors are triggering multiple hidden error categories, which will result in the article being listed on FAs needing maintenance-- not what we want :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, fixed now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style; sporadic hyphens used instead of WP:ENDASHes on page ranges, and inconsistent use of pp. v p., for example:

  • Khardziani 2006, pp. 206–207. has an endash on the page range, and uses pp for multiple pages, but
  • Virsaladze 2017, p. 13-14.
  • Virsaladze 2017, p. 23-24.
  • Rapp 2007, p. 137-138. all use hyphens instead of endash and use p. for page range instead of pp. Consistency needed. These are samples only, review throughout needed. I used to be able to fix these for you with a script: I don't know why it won't respond now, sorry :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I would assume it's the sfn system causing the script headaches? In any case, I've gone through and (hopefully) have fixed it all now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SEEALSO "should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic". Since FAs should be comprehensive already, we need some explanation for why these links are given in See also rather than within the article. Are they all necessary? Would a brief annotation on each, as described at WP:SEEALSO be helpful? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd that WP:SEEALSO is phrased that way. It seems to almost define the sections out of existence the better the article is, which is odd - as though a comprehensive article shouldn't have a see also at all. But it isn't always the case where a complete article on a specialized topic will discuss all possible relevant links - sometimes you want to refer the reader to similar concepts that would either be UNDUE if you got into them in the main text, or they aren't discussed in the sources. Anyway, I'm rambling.
The links in the section are other thematically similar goddesses I've come across. None were discussed in any of the sources, since they're not from related mythologies, so they aren't discussed in-text. I would prefer to annotate the section than to remove it, if that's okay. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be fine, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I removed one that wasn't super-relevant on review, and annotated the rest. Thoughts? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINK Georgian language is linked twice in the first paragraph. And then repeatedly throughout the article. I think that's an artifact of the language template, but there may be a way to override that? Duplinks pulls up nothing else of concern, so this small issue may not be worthy worrying about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a parameter on {{lang}} that lets you turn the linkage off. I guess I could yank the templates after the first one, since it's kind of obvious they're Georgian? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not worth worrying about! Just popped up on duplinks, which I know Coord Ian Rose will check. It is most likely caused by the template, so let the template creators fix it :0 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I did wind up asking about it at Template talk:Lang just in case :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PMC, I see you got a workable answer there ... and an explanation for why this one doesn’t work, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I forgot to go back and check for another reply. I've replaced all but the first instance (and the one in the lead image caption) with the non-linking version. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the usual MOS-y stuff I check, and I will settle in next for a complete read. None of the typical problematic overuse on Wikipedia of However, subsequently, in total, and the like, and no other MOS-y things I noticed. Very glad to see you here, PMC! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to begin reading yet ... talk page disruption. If you are able to remember, please leave spaces between posts for my old eyes :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, didn't realize. Happy to see you taking a look at this! Hopefully it's up to snuff. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy? How does now-lost differ from lost? ... had her origins in a now-lost common religion of the Kartvelian peoples. How does fully clear differ from clear? The etymology of Dali's name is not fully clear.
  • I don’t know what a round dance song is, and the article at round dance describes ballroom dancing. dance songs; same thing?
  • Circle dance is probably more correct, but annoyingly all the sources use "round dance" and our article is titled differently. I linked circle dance though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He connected the motif of the animals on the lower portion of the chalice to the hoofed animals which Dali served as the protector of. —> hoofed animals which Dali protected?
  • That's much better thank you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taboo is used in the lead but first linked in etymology ... link on first occurrence.
  • One ... them? One Svan story describes the consequences for three brothers who follow one of Dali's mountain goats up into the crags and attempt to shoot them.
  • Not sure what the critique is here to be honest. One story, so that's singular. Multiple goats are being followed and shot at, so plural them referring to the goats. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this article has a remarkable clarity of prose and organization, which (like good theatre) looks simple once accomplished, but must have been quite difficult to achieve. My points above are nitpicks, and don't prevent me from supporting. I do have some additional queries about the lead:
  • goddess who appears in the mythology --> goddess in the mythology?
  • "Similar" redundant? Other groups had similar figures considered equivalent ... Also, can this sentence be moved to the end of that para?
  • Can "associated with hoofed beasts" be worked in to the first paragraph? It is first mentioned in the fourth paragraph of the lead.

All of these may be stylistic, personal choice, or reflect my ignorance of the topic :) Congratulations on a mighty fine FA! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tweaked the "appears" thing. I think "similar figures" sets up the equivalency, so I left it in, but I wouldn't die on a hill protecting it if you strongly object. I moved the sentences about her theme to before the location ones. The first paragraph of the lead already said "patron of wild mountain animals such as ibex and deer" but I threw "hoofed" in there. Thank you for taking the time to have a look at this, I'm glad you enjoyed it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All good, excellent work, unwatching now. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check that short cites to multiple pages consistently use "pp." and single pages use "p." - some are the wrong way round
  • Okay, that should all be fixed now. I also changed the citations to Hunt 2012 to have the "loc" parameter instead of "p" since there are no page numbers in the e-book, only chapters. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rapp has a stray ref tag
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Charachidzé 1993: what were the original publication details?
  • Charachidzé, G. 1981. "Georgia. The religion and myths of the Georgians of the mountains." Dictionary of mythologies and religions of traditional societies and the ancient world . (ed. Yves Bonnefoy). Vol 1, pp 451–459. Paris: Flammarion.
  • But that's not what I'm citing, so I didn't include it. I suppose I could put "originally published in French in 1981" if you think it's better. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've done that for Chikovani - is there a reason for the difference? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, after some thought I realize my original rationale for the difference wasn't solid, so I've added the original publication to the Charachidzé citation as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when you include retrieval date and how these are formatted
  • I removed them all; on consideration I don't think they're hugely of value. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Jordania & Kane a high-quality reliable source?
  • Joseph Jordania is a noted Georgian ethnomusicologist. Frank Kane is acknowledged as a subject expert on Georgian choral music. He has studied it since the 1980s, taught it, and been published in state-sponsored publications on the topic. I have no concerns about their reliability, especially since the source is only used to report that Dali was invoked in a modern song mourning a famous mountain climber (who is indeed famous - see Mikhail Khergiani). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether publishers are included for periodicals. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regards to both location for books and publisher for periodical, I included as much information as I could find about the sources. In some cases, I was not able to find location or publisher, so they have been omitted. I'll double check the sources to be sure, but I was pretty thorough the first time around. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I went back through and I think I have all of the locations and all the publishers included now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use questions by Haukur (image removed, issue resolved)[edit]

  • Congratulations on a cool article! I am somewhat concerned about the fair use image. It seems unfortunate to me that we don't know who the artist is or even really when the drawing was made. Is it even necessarily clear that it was first published in 2013? Could we write to the magazine editors and ask them if they could provide more information? Haukur (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double checked the email from Prof Tuite where he sent me the image back in 2017, and at that time he did mention that the magazine didn't give the author or any other details. The magazine doesn't appear to currently have a web presence, and I can't speak a lick of Georgian, so writing to the editors doesn't seem realistic. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe someone in Category:Wikipedians from Georgia (country) could help figure this out. But let me elaborate a bit on my concerns here. Someone did this nice little drawing of Dali that we are using without their permission and without even crediting them. I think that's a shame but the lack of credit also weakens the fair use case. We are, furthermore, using the entire drawing (naturally) and our use is not really transformative. We have no critical commentary on the artwork, nor can we add any since that would be original research. So it's quite different from a case like The Persistence of Memory where the article is about a particular image. I just don't think the fair use case here is strong. Haukur (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see where you're coming from; I just don't think your expectation is realistic. If the magazine (which may or may not be defunct) didn't include the credit for the original image, it's hard to imagine that seven years later they would have that information. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not find that hard to imagine or unrealistic at all. If they commissioned it from some artist specifically for that article then the editors probably would remember. And if it was an image they got from an old book or some such they might well remember that too. It's been seven years, not seventy, and it's Georgia, not Alpha Centauri. Maybe, say, User:Anry.kiknavelidze, User:Beneto9 or User:BRUTE could help us track down contact information for the editors of Nadiroba (ნადირობა). Is it this magazine? [4] Haukur (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point remains that if they don't have a web presence or other available method of internet-based contact, it's not realistic to expect an English-speaking editor from Canada to attempt to contact them. I don't speak the language. I am not going to pay for a translator for a long-distance phone call. I don't have an address for them, and even if I did, I am not going to write them a machine-translated snail mail letter and wait god knows how long for a reply that may or may not come.
    Having typed the title of the cover you posted into Google translate, it appears to be a publication entitled ნადირობა თევზაობა/Hunting Fishing. I have no way to know if it's the same magazine, or simply one with a similar title. Google searching the phrase was not illuminating.
    Since none of the editors you randomly pinged have edited since August (and only BRUTE seems to have been really active ever), I've asked Emperor of Emperors, who speaks Georgian and has read over Georgian content for me before, to have a look and see if he can help. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be patronizing. I'm well aware that Georgia has the internet, but you're consistently failing to acknowledge that the magazine has zero evident web presence, complicated by the fact that its name is a common word. If the company you want me to reach has zero web presence, all the internet penetration in the world isn't going to help anyone actually get through to them through the internet. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors of a magazine will be very likely to have e-mail addresses and appropriate contact information is likely listed in the magazines themselves. We routinely hunt down sources and information more obscure than this. Haukur (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*I heard back from Professor Tuite, who confirmed he doesn't know the precise authorial details of the image or the contact details of the editing staff, but has kindly offered to ask around on social media for me since he speaks Georgian and Svan. If he doesn't find anything, I hope that is sufficient indication that the information is not reasonably publicly accessible. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings User:Haukurth. I'll search about the magazine to find out the credits for the img. User:Premeditated Chaos will post here and will let you know. Regards. An emperor /// Ave 03:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Haukur (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's been clearly established that the image in question is Georgian or originally intended to portray Dali. I suspect this is originally meant to be Devana, who is frequently depicted wearing a bear hide.[5] And, indeed, we can find online usage of our image where it is said to depict Devana.[6][7] Haukur (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tomorrow, I will start trying to track down the editors, writers or whoever I can find from the journal, but I sincerely doubt that anyone will be able to indicate the author. Given the nature of the journal, I honestly think it was just a scan from another source when it was used in it in the first place, it might not be the picture of Dali at all. Anyway, I'll engage other Georgian Wikipedians and try finding something out. — Anry.kiknavelidze (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) With all due respect, Haukurth, you are making a staggering assumption of bad faith. Back in 2017, Professor Tuite, who speaks Georgian and writes about the Caucasus for a living, provided me with a scan of the entire magazine page, which is in Georgian. I cropped it to upload just the image. He specifically mentioned the image was accompanied in the Georgian magazine by a Svan story called "Dali's Revenge". So...you're saying that a literal professor is incorrect about the origin of an image he scanned and provided to me, based on a Google image search that turned up an upload to some sketchy Russian sites, one of which is clearly dated in 2018 (one year after I uploaded the image to Wikipedia)? It's genuinely beginning to feel like you have some kind of weird axe to grind here, which I can't understand, as I don't think we've ever even interacted before.
    I've forwarded the magazine page scan to Emperor of Emperors so he can have a look and confirm that it's indeed Georgian and accompanied by a Svan story entitled "Dali's Revenge." Holy shit. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We interacted cordially last month and I don't remember ever being in any conflict with you. I have nothing against you and no agenda here except the quality of the encyclopedia (and, I guess, my personal curiosity and long-standing interest in mythological imagery). And, for what it's worth, I am "a literal professor" too, though not in matters Georgian. I have no doubt at all that the magazine article was published exactly as you say and do not in the least suspect you of any deception. Here's what I think happened: The magazine editors had an article on Dali. They wanted to illustrate it. They found, like you, that there aren't many illustrations of Dali going around. So, to have something there, they used an image of another hunting goddess which seemed to fit closely enough. The image looks a lot like other images of Devana while it fits the descriptions of Dali rather poorly. By your own account the magazine has no information on the provenance of the image. Multiple online sources describe it as showing Devana. I think it is more likely to be Devana than Dali. Let's see if we can find confirmation. Haukur (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • <eatingcrow>I really wish I'd slept through till the afternoon like I normally do after my night shifts. I just got an email about ten minutes ago from Prof Tuite that I really wish I'd gotten before writing the above reply (and I would've, if I'd slept to my usual time). The long and short of it is that he agrees with your conclusion that it depicts Devana, not Dali, and was probably, as you suggest, swiped from somewhere unknown as filler.</eatingcrow> I apologize for losing my temper. I was frustrated, but shouldn't have snapped at you because of it. I'll pull the image. (As a side note, I totally forgot about the Fish & Karate sock thing, and that it was you). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No harm done. I think you did the right thing by pulling the image but it really is a pity that we don't have a depiction like that of this interesting figure. Congratulations again on this detailed and informative article. Haukur (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I appreciate that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Premeditated Chaos. I've received the magazine page scan and I confirm it is image of Dali. I am also still searching the web try to get any contact for the magazine. Will keep you updated. Regards. An emperor /// Ave 20:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Emperor of Emperors, hey man, don't worry about it, it's probably not Dali after all. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ohh its a pity :( Is there any way we can get image of Dali painted by modern painters? An emperor /// Ave 21:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I thought about that, but I'm not sure it's entirely kosher with regards to being original research. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would WP:NFURG apply for this image? Author is credited. Image #4. An emperor /// Ave 21:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An illustration by an established Georgian artist (say, one of these) would be appropriate and, in principle, we could try to commission a work like that. I'd be happy to chip in, say, $100 for a freely licensed artwork. Getting a less-known Georgian artist to do it might be more financially doable but also less clearly appropriate. I don't know. Our illustration at the Devana article is apparently by a contemporary artist about whom we don't have an article. Haukur (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have to be a well-known Georgian artist (or even a Georgian artist)? There's plenty of people on social media available for commissions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I guess it would feel a bit more authentic coming from a Georgian artist? Then again it's not like the illustrations in Skaði are all by Icelandic artists, indeed, none of them are. Haukur (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hold the phone, a new image has been located[edit]

  • Okay, stop the presses, hold the phones, cancel any checks we've been cutting, etc etc. There's a Svan Facebook group and they sent over a culturally-accurate image of Dali created by a Svan artist, published in a Svan book from 1969. And we even know his name. I can die happy now. Pinging Haukurth, Buidhe, and Nikkimaria to confirm I haven't made a dog's breakfast of the non-free rationale. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again suggest using the generic non-free tag as we're using it to illustrate the character in general rather than the specific artwork, art style, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed it to that a few minutes after uploading, maybe you got a cached version? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A vast improvement - white clothes, golden hair, ibex, clear provenance. Also, I rather like the style. I think crediting the artist by name in the text accompanying the image in the article would be appropriate, like so for instance: "Dali by Georgian artist Vakhtang Oniani, published in 1969". A version of the image posted to Facebook has somewhat darker colors.[8] Maybe Dr. Tuite's copy is a little faded? Or maybe the other version has been artificially modified, I don't know. The artist seems to be born in 1932 and is apparently still alive. I still think claiming fair use for something like this is really pushing it legally but I'm not going to pick a fight over it. Haukur (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah not sure what's up with the color difference. I like the current version better than the darker one; I think the darker one is a digital tweak. I've updated the caption per your suggestion :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PMC, that's great you were able to locate that image :) An emperor /// Ave 02:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no, all credit goes to the Svan people on Facebook who provided it to Prof. Tuite, who sent it to me. I am merely the fortunate uploader :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Svans truely love Dali! :) An emperor /// Ave 03:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes[edit]

Hi Premeditated Chaos, am I correct in saying that this would be your first Featured article? This looks to be ready, but it's customary as such to get some source spot-checks on your nomination. Hopefully someone who's looked at your sources can provide a few. I've added the request to our list. --Laser brain (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laser brain, it is indeed my first FA. Thanks for adding that for me :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks by Spicy[edit]

Looks like this is just waiting on the spotchecks so I will go ahead and do it. As I said before, this subject is pretty far out of my usual editing area so forgive me if some of my comments are stupid.

  • 4: (Tuite 2006 p. 3). [a][b][c][d][f] all check out. On [e], the article's phrasing is a little close to the source: "She gives him a token of their love — a bead, ring or charm [twæl]— and requires him to avoid all contact with human females, including his own wife" vs. " She gives him a token of her favor (Tuite translates it as "a bead, ring, or charm") and demands that he abstain from the touch of mortal females, including his own wife". Probably not close enough to be problematic though.
  • 11 (Rapp 2007 pp. 137-138): [a] I assume this is used to support "the arrival of Christianity in Georgia, which began in approximately the 3rd century." The source says "Several lines of archaeological evidence ... have shown beyond any doubt that a small Christian presence already existed in eastern Georgia in the third century". Is this strong enough to claim that it began then? The wording implies it is possible that it began earlier but no evidence from those periods has yet been found. [b] checks out.
  • Turns out the arrival of Christianity in Georgia is one of those annoying topics where there are so many search hits that it's difficult to find a citation for specific facts. So, there's a tradition in the Georgian Orthodox Church that Andrew the Apostle preached to Georgia in the 1st century after Jesus's death, but there's no concrete historical evidence for this and it doesn't seem to have developed until a few centuries later (see Rapp 138). There's some archaeological evidence for upper-class conversions as early as the 3rd century (Christianization of Iberia cites Haas, C. (2008) Mountain Constantines: The Christianization of Aksum and Iberia, p 114 for that although I don't have access and haven't read it). The official conversion of Georgia didn't occur till Saint Nino preached to the king in the 4th century and he officially adopts Christianity in 326.([9], although that the source uncritically accepts the Andrew the Apostle story so I wouldn't cite it in the article).
  • I could reword to something like, "the adoption of Christianity in Georgia, which archaeological evidence indicates began as early as the 3rd century." Does that work? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rewording sounds good to me. Spicy (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14 (Hunt 2003 p. 82) - checks out. But isn't "female mistress" redundant?
  • Lol yeah I guess. I pulled "female". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 25 (Camuri, Fossati & Mathpal 1993, p. 123.) [a][b][c] - from what I can tell from the google snippet, looks okay. I imagine "unlike Dali she was known for prudishness rather than promiscuity" is supported by the other sources or elsewhere in the text?
  • I could insert a citation for it if you want, but Artemis being the goddess of chastity is in the lead of her article, so I figured it didn't need an individual citation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, the fact that Artemis is the goddess of chastity might not need a citation, but I think the comparison between Dali's promiscuity and Artemis's chastity does; by comparing the two of them you're producing a novel analysis that isn't in the sources (even if it's a very basic analysis). And the way the sentence is phrased implies that the sources explicitly say this: "Some sources have noted a similarity to the Greek goddess Artemis ... although unlike Dali she was known for prudishness rather than promiscuity."
  • BTW, is there a typo in the page number for ref 130? Page 152 doesn't say anything about Dali, while page 15 (which is what the google books URL links to) does. Spicy (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, yeah, that was a typo and I've fixed it. As for the comparison, I don't think it's an analysis, it's simply a presentation of two facts: Dali is consistently portrayed as sexually aggressive, and Artemis was a total prude. It doesn't draw any original conclusion from those facts, which I agree would be problematic. I could cut it into two sentences if that makes it more palatable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few refs are out of order: " "Angel of the Crags".[21][19] " " or at the summit of the mountain.[25][21]" "Her skin was so white it was literally radiant.[25][15]"
  • 37 (Kveselava 1958, p. 224.) - checks out
  • 41 (Mikaberidze 2015, p. 121.) - [a][b][c] all check out
  • 46 (Tuite 2006, p. 18) - [a] checks out; [b] the part about punishing the greedy is not really explicitly stated, but it's supported elsewhere in the text e.g. p. 2., so okay; [c] checks out
  • 52 (Davidson & Chaudhri 1993, p. 157) - checks out
  • 55 (Salia 1983, p. 32.) - can't see this page on google books, would you mind posting a quote?
  • I have a PDF of this if you want it emailed. Here's the relevant paragraph: "In the Svan tribe hunting, especially hunting the ibex, is a ceremonial act of sacrifice. When the hunters set out they are provided with sacrificial bread, called lamsir, a small jug of wine, wax candles and a piece of smoked ibex.

The hunters halt when they come to a turning in the path. They bathe their faces in spring water, light the candles, take three rolls of bread, turn to the East and pray to the goddess of hunting, Dali. After they have eaten they continue on their way." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • 64 (Virsaladze 2017, p. 206) - Getting a 404 error on the PDF
  • Yeah, it's permafucked now unfortunately, not sure why. I have a copy I can email you, and there is also a full copy on docplayer. Not sure if it's kosher to link to it, although the Georgian Academy doesn't seem to object to it being there - I emailed them asking to buy a physical copy of the book and they told me to read it on docplayer. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good news, I found a copy of it on the Internet Archive: [10]. The source checks out. Spicy (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome! I've put it in the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 72 (Chaudhri 2002, p. 171.) - can't access this page on google books either
  • Weird, it's fully-there for me. Could email you a screencap of the page if you want, it's a lot to type out. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, you can send me the screencap. Spicy (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sent p 15, 16, and 18. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Received... but - my mistake - I typed #72 when I meant #74. Anyway, I was able to access this source through other means and all three references check out. Spicy (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh that's definitely my fault, I got signals crossed between this and the Artemis source and didn't double check before sending. Sorry about that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 82 (Tuite 1997, p. 11.) - [a][b][c] all check out
  • 87 (Khardziani 2006, p. 206) - [a][b][c] all check out
  • 91 ( Monaghan 2014, p. 297. ) - checks out
  • 112 (Hunt 2003, p. 89.) - [a] had to read a few more pages to understand this but seems ok since this is essentially summarizing the overall point of the paper; [b] checks out
  • 121 (Chirikba 2015, pp. 162–163) - mentions the Kumyk forest goddess but does not contrast it with Dali or the hunting goddess archetype, I assume the other sources do so?
  • It's a bit contextual with the rest of the paragraph. Virsaladze gets into it on pages 36 & 85 a little more, but essentially in regions of the Caucasus that have a "forest woman" (who is a spirit rather than a worshipped goddess), there's no hunting goddess. In those areas, the hunting goddess has either been replaced culturally by a male figure like Ochopintre, or she was never a thing in the first place. So the Kumyks having a forest woman in that vein means they don't have a hunting goddess. (Unfortunately I couldn't find a source that got farther into the Kumyks specifically so I don't know what they had instead.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 128 (Bakker 2013, p. 84) - [a] and [b] check out
  • 150 & 151 (Astronomical Union Working Group for Planetary System Nomenclature) - checks out
  • 153 ( Bukhsianidze & Vekua 2006, p. 159.) - checks out
  • 154 (Kir 2014, p. 2) - content checks out but I am deeply skeptical of the journal it is published in. Their website is full of typos and is distinctly unprofessional looking, they are using a fake impact factor, and they proudly state that they are indexed by Google... why is an Indian journal publishing articles on Georgian literature (and dozens of other unrelated subjects according to their website?) The article itself has numerous major grammatical errors, suggesting an insufficient review process, and the "How to cite this article" section gives the citation for a completely different article! In short this is very sketchy and shows every sign of being a predatory journal. Granted, the author is apparently a humanities professor at a Georgian university, and "a novelist wrote about Dali" is not exactly an exceptional claim - but is it possible to find a better source for this? Maybe a Georgian speaking editor could help?
  • Yeahhhhhhhhhh I knew this one was marginal when I threw it in. I did try to search in Georgian for something better (I know I don't read it, but a brute-force Google search sometimes works) and unfortunately Gamsakhurdia's son, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, married a woman named Dali Lolua, so the search hits are all noise from her name. Keeping it in isn't a hill I'll die on by any stretch, but I do think it helps bolster the overall theme of her being relevant in modern literature. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty uncomfortable with using a possibly predatory journal... I tried out my google skills as well and did not find much. There seems to be an article for Capturing the Moon at ka:მთვარის_მოტაცება, which has a decent number of sources; maybe some of these might mention Dali? I also found this on Google Books; according to Google Translate, it contains the text "What can I do, I unhappy, who believes neither Dali nor Satan? "Capturing the Moon" is a detailed description of hunting ..." (მე რა ვქნა , მე უბედურმა , ვისაც არც დალი სწამს და არც სატანა ? ... მთვარის მოტაცებაში “ ზედმიწევნით არის აღწერილი ნადირობასთან ...) Emperor of Emperors, are you able to comment on the Georgian sources? Many thanks, Spicy (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahh, for what it's worth I replaced the citation to Kir with one to the above-quoted book. On page 4 it lists a bunch of Georgian deities and page 29 mentions the novel specifically (god bless Google snippets and Google translate), so I've cited that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I don't have any concerns about copyvio or close paraphrasing; there is a single sentence that could perhaps be rephrased slightly but that is not a major issue. Nothing concerning on the Earwig report. Spicy (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stepping in for the source check, Spicy, I really appreciate it. I've responded to several of your comments and made some changes. I have to head out now but should be able to get to the rest tomorrow evening. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a heads up, I threw in another source - [11] - and expanded the last paragraph of the Origins section, after I turned it up last night while searching Dali/Artemis. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Dali_(goddess)/archive1&oldid=979820201"