Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I will put this article on hold for now, as I believe that changes can be made to improve the article before it is failed.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Nice organization

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Not all dubious facts sourced. Maybe this has to do something with POV. See below

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Overly promotive for the person. Gives me a feel the writer is preaching to us to make him god.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold

• Could you pls list the issues? Are you referring to the quotes? Yes, I would have removed a few of quotes and put them in wikiquote. Thanks Nvineeth (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I was not referring to quotes. I was referring to the whole article. I can find something that is not WP:NPOV in almost every single paragraph. I would say that if NPOV is reached, the citation requirment would also be reached. Leujohn ^(talk) 03:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a section as an example, say "Birth and childhood", and explain in detail what you say above? Also I am not sure, about how "NPOV is reached, the citation requirment would also be reached". An example will be very good. Nvineeth (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon closer examination, I did find some peacock terms, and fixed them, I would like know more about "dubious" references and other POV issues that you may see. Nvineeth (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review 2

I have few issues to raise:

• In the lead section, "Ramakrishna's ideas were spread to the West by Swami Vivekananda, beginning in 1893 as the spokesman for Hinduism at the first Parliament of the World's Religions at Chicago. There Vivekananda's message of universalism was well received and he attracted widespread support. He eventually established the Vedanta Society to spread the universal truths of Hindu philosophy in America and in India he founded the Ramakrishna Mission—a monastic society that promotes Ramakrishna's ideas of religious pluralism and carries out social service.[11] The Ramakrishna movement has been termed as one of the revitalization movements of India.[12] As of 2008, Ramakrishna Mission has 166 branch centers all over India and in different parts of the world and the headquarters is located at the Belur Math.[13]" should have a corresonding section in detail in the biography or some other place, say "Impact" or after "Biography-The last days"

Yes, this needs to be added. Probably this need not be added in Biography, because other articles Vivekananda, Ramakrishna Mission which are linked discuss this in detail... I would like to hear from other editors/reviewers regarding this.

• Can this line, "Ramakrishna is known to have practised some of these bhavas" be improved, because this is a weasel line.

 Completed (this line was removed, doesnt make any value addition as such)

• This line, "He reportedly became well versed in the songs, tales and dramas which were based on the religious scriptures.[17] At a very early age, he is said to have become acquainted with the Purāṇas, the Rāmāyaṇa, the Mahābhārata, and Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, hearing them from wandering monks and the Kathaks—a class of men in ancient India who preached and sang the Purāṇas for the uneducated masses.[18]". I think it is repetitive, and I feel that it can be shortened. But not a major problem though.

 Completed , yes this line has unnecessary phrases.

• This line, "At the age of six or seven, Ramakrishna describes about his first spiritual ecstasy. According to him, he was walking along the paddy fields and suddenly looked up to find a flock of white cranes flying against a backdrop of dark thunder-clouds." should be improved, because, the first line specifically tells, "Ramakrishna describes" and the second line again says "According to him", which is again repetitive, and the second line should be corrected.

 Completed, this sentence was poorly written, fixed it.

• This line, "After the vision, Ramakrishna surrendered himself to Kali. Childlike, he obeyed what he called the will of the Mother Kali in everything, no matter how trivial or philosophical." probably should be prefixed with "Ramakrishna says that after the vision".

 Completed

• This line, "After his marriage Ramakrishna returned to Calcutta and took upon himself the charges of the temple", "took upon himself" can be simply made, "resumed".

 Completed

• This line, "that all he needed was a suggestion ", should be "all that"?

 Completed

• Can this line be improved, "She had heard rumours that her husband had become mad, and was in deep grief. She also heard reports that he had become a great religious man."? First line contains a "rumour" and the second line contains a "report", I think this should be made consistent.

According to the biography, the usage of "rumour" and "report" is correct.

• This line, "Ramakrishna was a teacher of popular appeal, speaking in rustic Bengali, freely using stories and parables." I think is not neutral, because it has peacock word-"popular appeal".

 Completed, fixed this line

• The references are solid and good. But take care of formatting such as, in this citation, "Chapter 20 — RULES FOR HOUSEHOLDERS AND MONKS", remove the Capitals.

 Completed

• The "pages" in citation template should be fixed. ( Was the cite button in the edit toolbar used? ) Few citations have pp. instead of p. for single pages. Probably this was because of using the cite button in edit toolbar which by default adds, "pages="

 Completed

For time being, these are the few issues I see. If there are any I will raise them. Thanks. Bluptr (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review 3

Why have the views of contemporary scholars been removed to another article entitled "Views on Ramakrishna"? Can you name another article of a religious, historical or philosophical figure in which the views of contemporary scholars are moved to a separate artice? Can you find any precedent in Wikipedia policy for this organization of the content? — goethean ॐ 18:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you define "contemporary scholars"? Did you go through the Peer Review and have you forgotten this discussion? Do you know there is a wikipedia policy related to Article Size? Can you tell why "contemporary" stuff should be given more weightage than Teachings which also has a separate article? Can you explain taking Jesus article as example? --Nvineeth (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the Ramakrishna article was under the philosophy subtopic, not religion. So Jesus would not be the appropriate analogy. The Jesus article deals extensively with recent scholarship on Jesus. [1][2][3] The Ramakrishna article does not. — goethean ॐ 20:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell why "contemporary" stuff should be given more weightage than Teachings which also has a separate article?

Most of the Ramakrishna article is devoted to the traditional story of Ramakrishna's life as presented in the Kathamrta Gospel. Numerous scholars have treated this material. Reference to this criticism is absent from the article. That needs to be fixed. Additionally, there are other biographies than the Kathamrta which have been excluded from the article. If you will remember, the article that I wrote opened with a discussion of the materials relating to Ramakrishna's biography. You deleted it. — goethean ॐ 20:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When another editor can find the discussion related Biographical sources in the archives and the "removed" material linked at proper place, I wonder why you cannot? --Bluptr (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you clarify? — goethean ॐ 16:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If you will remember, the article that I wrote opened with a discussion of the materials relating to Ramakrishna's biography. You deleted it."--If you remember I also listed the original research, failed reference checks,[4] and one sided POVs. Did you the check discussion related to biographic sources in the archive and also in the peer review? Another editor also identified this lengthy discussion as WP:UNDUE. None of the wikipedia articles begin with a one sided discussion on "Biographic Sources". Apparently "You deleted it" is false. Apparently I have edits in which I have added material from Kripal, Sil, pls go thru the last section --Nvineeth (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

" Numerous scholars have treated this material. Reference to this criticism is absent from the article. That needs to be fixed."--This is a article on Ramakrishna, not "Criticism of Gospel of Ramakrishna". BTW, why add only "criticism", what about Neevel, Lex Hixon's views, Philip Zaelski's views?? --Nvineeth (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The linked article is a fraction of the size of the wikipedia article and contains no footnotes,"—nice original research. The sections you mention above are unrelated here.--Nvineeth (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goethean's 'contemporary scholars' are a couple of scholars that present an extremely small minority view that is not accepted by the broader scholarly community. This has been discussed ad infinitum in the past. Per WP:UNDUE, "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". Commonly accepted reference texts, for example Brittanica, and Britannica Encyclopedia of World Religions[5] make absolutely no mention of the extreme minority views of Goethean's 'contemporary scholars'. Per WP:UNDUE, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Goethean's minority-view scholars and some actual majority-view scholars are in the appropriate sub-article Views on Ramakrishna. Priyanath ^talk 05:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The linked article is a fraction of the size of the wikipedia article and contains no footnotes, so it is impossible to determine anything about what sources were used in its construction. — goethean ॐ 16:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And even with its small size, the Britannica article manages to be more objective and less devotional than the Wikipedia article in its current, non-neutral revision. — goethean ॐ 16:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The linked article is a fraction of the size of the wikipedia article and contains no footnotes,"--Did you see this, and also the Notes section of the article Books_on_Ramakrishna?--Nvineeth (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison's sake, here are some Good Articles that have similar subjects, and a similar tone: Krishna, Saint Patrick, John Chrysostom, Sai Baba of Shirdi. Priyanath ^talk 18:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, the fact that no mainstream reference books even mention the use of a fringe practice on Ramakrishna (psychoanalysis based not on a one-on-one therapist relationship, but on 100 year old texts) goes to the heart of the matter according to WP:UNDUE. Priyanath ^talk 21:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the text quality still needs to improve, few examples:

• "One day when Ramakrishna saw the picture of Madonna and Child Jesus, he felt that the figures became alive and had a vision in which Jesus merged with his body. In his own room amongst other divine pictures was one of Christ, and he burnt incense before it morning and evening." , this should probably start with Ramakrishna said that...
• "Ramakrishna had an extraordinary style of preaching and instructing, convincing even the most skeptical visitors.", is a peacock sentence, and can probably written as, "Even some of the skeptical visitors were convinced by Ramakrishna's style of preaching and instructing." (just a suggestion)
• The inline references are good, but there is a mismatch between inline references, and the References section, this needs to be worked on as well. See, WP:REF#Inline_citations
• Its also a good idea to get the article reviewed by a editor who has zero knowledge on Hinduism and Ramakrishna. This will help in identifying the problems. The problems indicated by Abecedare should also be addressed.[6]

The GA review has proceed for more than a month, and I think addressing these issues will take more time, so I will be failing the GAN. But the article has improved significantly ever since the review began.(and thats the whole point of all these reviews!) I feel that the article is close to GA but not quite there, still some work is needed. I feel that if the prose quality is improved, the article will be a GA. I also feel that its generally more challenging and tougher to write a article in religion/philosophy than the article on science/psychology/biology, which are nothing but a collection of facts. Considering this, the article is definitely good, but still needs improvement. If somebody feels my review is not proper, I will be glad to address the issues or raise them at the talk page. Thank you. Bluptr (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]