Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Meher Baba

Meher Baba

The article is useful to most readers and covers the subject sufficiently to become class GA. One problem is that there are very few secondary sources available. Biographies exist by people who have lived for long close to Meher Baba and references are given. I am asking for a peer review to help locate the elements of the article that can be refined, rephrased, or changed for the upgrading. It is hard for me to locate POV or original research due to lack of experience. Also please note that there have been almost no conflicts. One somewhat disputed section about Peter Townsend can become better integrated, to please both "insiders" and readers in general (and Wikipedia standards). Hoverfish 12:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article cannot be a good article, because all the mentioned references strike me as not peer reviewed. Many of the references may even be partisan. Andries 17:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content problems Townsend

Lets get the Townsend section to reflect actuality. Brutally edit it. That is, as a percentage of Baba's life and as a percentage of Baba followers he should have, no mention at all, and one line at best, respectively. Its just too stupid for words to have all this Townsend and Who material. Im a long term Baba lover and I find it pathetic to see this sort of quasi famous stuff here, as if it needs to be there to validate Baba. The inclusion of Townsend relects a lack of depth, breadth and academic rigour. When material is sourced and dislayed that does not match what occured in the persons life superficiality results. This is not a GA article. This article needs upgrading. Pete who? --Liam7 08:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait to hear what the peer reviewer has to say before we 'brutally edit' any part of the article. It is very possible he or she will agree. But let's all calm down until we hear from someone impartial. Such views about Townshend are well expressed and I'm sure the reviewer will take them under consideration and give some feedback. If necessary we can take this issue up with arbitration, but in the meantime let's remain civil and consider consensus. Chris 14:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

The lead could be a bit more expanded per WP:LEAD.
"The events of Meher Baba's life are well documented". Such a declaration is redundant. Inline citations are needed. Bibliography or references are not enough.
What exactly is a "Perfect Master"? The link takes me to an article with a variety of explanations.
Avoid short one-sentence paragraphs.
"Manzil-e-Meem and Meherabad" and "Prem ashram" are stubby. I would suggest merger or expansion.
"I am never silent. I speak eternally. The voice that is heard deep within the soul is My voice...the voice of inspiration, of intuition, of guidance. To those who are receptive to this voice, I speak. [1]" Not the best way to link external links. After all quotes need inline citations (where you can cite an external link).
For quotes, in general, check WP:MoS. Quotations (where you have "someone said:" and then the quote) should use <blockquote>s.
You must think if the long quotes like the one in "The New Life" are absolutely necessary.
I think the 5-6 last sub-sections of his biography should be rewritten. They are stubby and listy. Again think about what needs expansion, merger etc.
I think you could create a sub-article about Baba's csmology and make a summary of it in this article. The cosmology section is quite long and could stand as an article itself.
"For more information on Meher Baba's concept of the planes of consciousness, one may refer to his book God Speaks." You have already linke the book; this is unnecessary. You could also do somethin like that at the top of a section or sub-section.

.

I read something about expanding "Influence on Pete Townshend". Is there more material? Could possibly a sub-article be created?
"See also" looks long to me. If there are links made in the prose there is no reason to re-link them here. If you can incorporate some of these links in the main article, do it.
Too many external links. Are they all necessary? In any case they should be better organized and categorized.--Yannismarou 10:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the peer review, Yannismarou, most appreciated by all concerned. Hoverfish 15:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]