Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Prem Rawat/Review 1

Prem Rawat

Request independent review by non-involved editors ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the time in reviewing the article and for the useful comments. As I have declared a conflict of interest on this subject, I will proceed to implement these suggestions on my sandbox, with the expectation that one of you, after reviewing my efforts, will be kind enough to effectuate the actual edit, if my efforts were useful in improving the article as per the recommendations below. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I am working through your points at User:Jossi/sandbox/Prem_Rawat. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you are ready, give me a notice.--Yannismarou 08:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits completed as per peer review

I have completed the recommended fixes, with the exception of the lead, that may require other editors involvement as there was a dispute on how to word it, and what to include. I am also looking for some references for the couple of sentences that still need sourcing.

The edit is at User:Jossi/sandbox/Prem Rawat, you can check the history to see each point addressed. I would appreciate if one of you can make the edit at Prem Rawat and copy the new version to complete this first phase, if your asessment is that your points and suggestions have been addressed. Note that I have not deleted any material from the original version.

Once the copy to Prem Rawat is completed, I would appreciate a phase II, where you may make further comments on structure and any suggestions on how to address the copyediting that may still be needed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented yur changes. My suggestion is to archive this peer-review and start a new one, so as not to get confused here with comments over comments etc. I think that this will be better for all of us, including Sandy, who had expressed his willingness to also offer a review after a notice of you.--Yannismarou 08:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Yannis. Yes, please archive so we ca open a second peer review to deal with the pending issues. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plange

My impression on reading this is that it needs a good copyedit and perhaps a re-examination of the structure? Seems to repeat things, etc. Specific items I noticed are:

Lead seems too long and goes into unneccessary detail, especially right off the bat. See WP:LEAD. It should summarize article and highlight what makes him notable, and first paragraph especially needs work.
"these early days, Prem Rawat was known both as Sant Ji and as Balyogeshwar" do those terms have a meaning? If so, might be good to translate what they mean.
In Childhood in India: "called 'the 'Peace Bomb' marked the start " is either missing a single quote or has one too many
Jumps around on how it refers to subject, from full name, to first name, to last name, and to variations of his title. Generally you should use just the last name after the person's been introduced, but if you can make a case that he should be called by his title, then you need to be consistent and always use it (and the same one).
I wikified some cities, but there's still more to do.
Punctuation should go before the refs
These sentences don't make sense, is something missing just after first set of refs? "Other scholars, such as Kranenborg, George D. Chryssides and Ron Geaves also described a departure from divine connotations.[61][62] while continuing delivering the four techniques of Knowledge which, according to Chryssides, afford self-understanding and self-realization in a manner that is independent of culture and not bound to the traditions of India.[63]
This part is confusing: "he is not an officer, director, or employee of either organization" (under Prem Rewat today) because at this point were just talking about one organization Elan Vital and its numerous locations around the world. "either" makes it sound like you're referring to two organizations.
The last 2 paragraphs of Access to the techniques seem out of place as they have to do with the history of the practice and provenance than with access.
The whole section of Life Work seems to be a repeat of info elsewhere, or where the info that is not a repeat could go elsewhere.
"In an article that appeared in the local newspaper of Frederick County, Maryland in 1979, Mishler claimed that he proposed to Maharaji to tell his followers plainly that the was not God" assuming the part in bold is a typo and should be 'he' but didn't want to make that assumption.
In the Criticism section it mentions a Melton, but without a first name or indicator of who he/she is. Is it a former student, a religious scholar? This should be noted.
I'd split Notes and References into two sections. In Notes, have a shortened version of the cite, i.e. Palmer and Keller, Religions of the World, p. x and then in the References section I'd list (in alphabetical order by author) the full list of reference works for easy lookup/reference. See Stephen Trigg as an example.

--plange 03:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ad 2. The translation of Balyogeshwar used to be in the article. Will re-insert. I will insert a translation of Sant Andries 10:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ad 12 I do not understand this point because Melton was introduced earlier in the article as a religious scholar. Andries 10:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

Informative article, but there are many problems.

I agree that the lead is too long. And this is a comment from a user who writes long lists, but this is far too long!
"Afterwards, his mother and brothers came on stage to pay their respects to him.[25][26][27][28][29]" What is that? 5 citations in a row?!!! Not recommended! Not more than two! I have also seen some similar problems somewhere else. Fix these problems.
"Prem Rawat was born in India where he attended the Catholic-run St. Joseph's Academy elementary school in Dehra Dun. He is the fourth and youngest son of Shri Hans Ji Maharaj and his second wife, Jagat Janani Mata Shri Rajeshwari Devi. At the age of three he began speaking about fulfillment, love, and peace at his father's meetings." Choose a tense and stick on it! Since you narrate, I recommend past tense.
"There is a witness account by Shri Hans' personal driver that refers to Shri Hans' request that Prem succeed him and also reports that some of the family were discussing alternatives." This is one of the many prose problems of the article. Like Plange, I also strongly suggest an external copy-edit of the article. But this must be the last stage, after you fix all the other problems.
In the beginning of "The 1970s" I see some stubby paragraphs. Merge or expand. Such paragraphs are not good for the article's flow.
When you citate, it is not necessary to use italics. As a matter of fact, I think this use of italics is not recommended. If you want to emphasize on a specific quote, there is a variety of quoteboxes.
"An FAQ of Elan Vital claims that this statement is routinely pronounced by people in India.[53] See Guru and God in Hinduism." We donot link to other articles like that. The prose must have an uninterrupted continuity and flow. Incorporate this link in your prose or delete it.
"He returned to South America ... for operating various types of aircraft." Uncitated paragraph.
"Rawat continued ... in other regions and countries." Another uncitated paragraph.
"Number of practitioners of Knowledge" is also uncitated.
I also prefer the splitting of notes and references (it offers a better overview of the sources for both the reader and the reviewer), but other users prefer a unique Notes section as you have it. Both styles are acceptable, under the term that you give all the necessary information for the sources you use.

I suggest you fix all these things (including what Plange and other reviewers suggest) and then come back for a new peer-review. Then we'll mostly focus on content and structuring issues. I think that some sections may need reorganization or summarizing with the creation of sister sub-articles, but I'm not yet sure. Let's have an improved version of the current article and then we'll see.--Yannismarou 12:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy

Considering that Plange's and Yannismarou's comments will result in a hefty improvement, please ping me for a look when those changes are done. If you really #must# have a long string of footnotes to reference one sentence, have a look at how Daniel Boone handles multiple notes in one ref, or how I combined multiple sources into one ref at the bottom of Tourette syndrome (last reference); it accomplishes the same, but looks prettier :-) Sandy (Talk) 20:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]