Talk:Ramprasad Sen/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hello, I am Unionhawk. This is my second time reviewing a GAN, so if you believe I make any errors, please take that up at a GA reassessment, not on my talk page, on second thought, constructive criticism on my reviewing skills would be much appreciated. I personally think that this article was put up for GAN a little prematurely, but I'll let the criteria find out.
Criteria
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- minor prose issues throughout.
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Not enough sources.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- This has 4 different Citation styles, and in-line is not the most used.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Not too sure, honestly...
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- pretty much 2 editors...
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Not enough images. At all.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Too early. Good luck with improving the article.
- Pass or Fail:
Hmm... I don't know. I'm asking for a second opinion now.
- Thanks for the review,
- Pls explain "Not enough sources".
- Regarding images, there is only one of Ramprasad Sen's iconography that is available on the net and that too is copyrighted.
- The Citations are uniform, probably, The GA review was started before I made them uniform.
- What are the "Major aspects" that needs to be covered? Pls list them. If required, pls compare it with another encyclopedia article of Ramprasad.
- Thanks again, --Nvineeth (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. I noticed that you (Unionhawk) asked for a second opinion for this article.
- The word "famous" in the lead sounds a bit POV to me.
- Is there a picture of Ramprasad Sen anywhere?
- Again "famous" (in the Early Life section), "popular " (in the Employment section and again in Stories and Legends, also in Poetry and Influence), seems POV
- There has to be a better way to start the sentence than "one day". Maybe reword it?
What is the last sentence about?Okay how about instead: Scholar Shuma Chakrovarty writes, "what ensures his immortality in the land of his birth is the indisputable fact that his songs are still an integral part of the rich vibrant spiritual life of Bengal." Chakrovarty notes that he heard Ramprasad's songs "broadcast over the radio and sung on the streets and in the homes and temples of Calcutta by a cross-section of people—children, the elderly, housewives, businessmen, scholars, the illiterate, monks, householders, and the youth of all classes."(207)
- While basically it is an interesting and somewhat well written, in places it seems biased towards the poet. There are also some minor prose errors. There seem to be enough sources (although "Budhanananda, Swami (1994). Ramprasad: The Melodious Mystic. Ramakrishna Mission, New Delhi, India.", "Sen, Sukumar (1960). History of Bengali Literature (3 ed.). Sahitya Akademi.", and "Lal, Mohan (1992). Encyclopedia of Indian Literature. Sahitya Akademi. http://books.google.com/books?id=KnPoYxrRfc0C&pg=PA3912." probably need ISBNs.) The article probably shouldn't just rely on one source to say that something is popular, too. I see that a lot of good work has been put into the article, but am not sure that it is a GA at this point. Kaguya-chan (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- All right. That's what I was thinking. Not quite ready for GA yet.--Unionhawk Talk 01:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Kaguya-chan for your second opinion, I agree with it and the issues raised will hopefully be resolved in a few days. Unionhawk, I just wanted to share a couple of things : GA Reviewers must explain the points they raise, like Kaguya-chan did. For ex: "Major aspects" is unclear, similarly with "Not enough sources". ( see "Giving problems, not solutions" ). If you are unaware, to quote from Process, "Whether you fail an article or put it on hold, you should always leave extensive notes on the review page, ". Finally, pls use Edit summaries. --Nvineeth (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I really could not understand the "not enough images". GA criteria says: "The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided." It seems in this case, they are not readily available. Then I see "Not enough sources", I could not believe this. Almost every sentence is cited.--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Kaguya-chan for your second opinion, I agree with it and the issues raised will hopefully be resolved in a few days. Unionhawk, I just wanted to share a couple of things : GA Reviewers must explain the points they raise, like Kaguya-chan did. For ex: "Major aspects" is unclear, similarly with "Not enough sources". ( see "Giving problems, not solutions" ). If you are unaware, to quote from Process, "Whether you fail an article or put it on hold, you should always leave extensive notes on the review page, ". Finally, pls use Edit summaries. --Nvineeth (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- All right. That's what I was thinking. Not quite ready for GA yet.--Unionhawk Talk 01:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- While basically it is an interesting and somewhat well written, in places it seems biased towards the poet. There are also some minor prose errors. There seem to be enough sources (although "Budhanananda, Swami (1994). Ramprasad: The Melodious Mystic. Ramakrishna Mission, New Delhi, India.", "Sen, Sukumar (1960). History of Bengali Literature (3 ed.). Sahitya Akademi.", and "Lal, Mohan (1992). Encyclopedia of Indian Literature. Sahitya Akademi. http://books.google.com/books?id=KnPoYxrRfc0C&pg=PA3912." probably need ISBNs.) The article probably shouldn't just rely on one source to say that something is popular, too. I see that a lot of good work has been put into the article, but am not sure that it is a GA at this point. Kaguya-chan (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Try not to have two adjacent but individual wikilinks together shown in Tantrik yogi. This can confuse users. Consider Tantrik scholar and yogi. Extremepro (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)