Talk:Paratha

Pics

Maybe I should click some myself and add!! However, I am not clear about the copyright things: of course, I 'm open to GFDLing my snaps. Buntygill 12:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging

I suggest merging Roti canai and Roti prata since they're almost the same thing. But don't merge into Paratha, because the Malayan variety is distinct enough for its own article. Clayoquot ^Sound 04:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

roti canai/prata is not the same as this article paratha. It is however the Malayan adaptation and the exact same as Parotta 116.87.59.58 (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced material

I removed a dormant fact that has been requesting a reference since September 2007. If nobody has found one thus far, it requires deletion. If anybody can find a reference, feel free to reinstate one with it. I have also added a citation needed marker to the section on Western consumption and time management. Please add a reference in here too or it will have to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.228.131 (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

hello

well I find the following line a bit dumb.

 The paratha was first conceived in the ancient Punjab region, but soon became popular all over India (and even current Pakistan),

"and even current Pakistan"? well duh, it hasn;t been long since pakistan seprated from india. surely it should be obvious that they will have siomilar food 170.115.248.20 (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Saving a portion of erased text in case can incorporate it somewhere

and the peda (ball of kneaded dough) flattened into a circle, the stuffing is kept in the middle, and the flatbread is closed around the stuffing like an envelope. The latter two also vary in that they have discernible soft layers, with one "opening" to the crispier shell layers. RPSM (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The paratha dough usually contains ghee or cooking oil which is also layered on the freshly prepared paratha.

The layering is achieved by the oil separating thin layers of dough that do not contain any oil at all. I have erased this for clarity. RPSM (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The article reads:

History and popularity The paratha is an important part of a traditional South Asian breakfast. Traditionally, it is made using ghee but oil is also used. Some people may even bake it in the oven for health reasons. Usually the paratha is eaten with dollops of white butter on top of it. Side dishes which go very well with paratha are curd, fried egg, omelette, qeema (ground mutton cooked with vegetables and spices), nihari (a lamb dish), jeera aloo (potatoes lightly fried with cumin seeds), daal, and raita as part of a breakfast meal. It may be stuffed with potatoes, paneer, onions, qeema or chili peppers.

Comment:

Wheat as a staple is predominantly in the North of India. What is eaten in the south is not a Paratha but a Parotta. - These are made with maida which is refined all purpose flour that discards wheatgerm and bran and retains only the endosperm which is mainly starch. Doctors warn that a diet that is based on this as a staple carries a risk of heart disease.

According to this article: The Hindu Parottas loaded with danger say docs it carries a risk of heart disease, and traditional south Indian staples such as Dosa idli are healthier. RPSM (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Maratha?

Can I please ask why "Maratha" appears as it does in this article's openeer? Who exactly is confusing Maratha with paratha? This makes about as much sense as someone adding a disclaimer to an article about carrots saying "for the bird, please see parrot"

It makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever Theudariks 2.0 (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe this is a plausible typo, as it is possible that someone on a mobile device types "maratha" but gets autocorrected to "paratha". I have restored the hatnote, but if anyone disagrees, we can remove it again. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

GA review

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

Nominator: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 05:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Magnesium Cube (talk · contribs) 00:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be doing the GA review for Paratha. Expect it to be done by tomorrow. Nice work you've done!

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Broad and focused in specific sections, neutral, and stable. Prose and grammar are good, and so is the MoS. Good images. Unlikely copyvio, good references and sources, no OR.

I'll passCongrats!

• @Magnesium Cube: Hi, thanks for reviewing. Right now, this review seems incomplete; you have not written anything to justify why you think this article meets the criteria. In particular, you must at least include a spot-check of sources that you have checked to ensure that there is no plagiarism or unverified information. You should do this before passing the article as a GA. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 16:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I did a spot-check; I just forgot to include it in the review. I'll add it. MagnesiumCube (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Citations 1, 25, 36, 45, 65, 90, 133, and 175 spot-check:

1 ✓

25 ✓ (Took a long time for me to access this)

36 ✓

45 ✓ (I was originally going to question the reference, but glossed over the boiled rice portion (Nice research)) -- "The median portion sizes of boiled rice and plain paratha were 140g and 60g, respectively"

65 ✓

90 ✓ (You may want to specify Jamaica in the article)

133 ✓

175 ✓ (The source itself seems a bit biased, but due to your use of only the distribution, it passes)

As for writing, MoS, neutrality, and stability, it's all good - I've read the article three times and nothing really stands out to me. Earwig's Copyvio Detector only shows 16.7% similarity (dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225798), which is unlikely to be framed as a violation. MagnesiumCube (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2026 (UTC)