Talk:Karl Marx in Kalbadevi/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 07:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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): See below. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): No issues. It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): No issues. Spot-checks don't show problems. b (citations to reliable sources): No issues. c (OR): No issues. d (copyvio and plagiarism): No issues. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): No issues. A short article; could possibly use some expansion, but can't see obvious places. b (focused): No issues. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: Mostly fine, but see below. It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: No issues. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): One image, which is fair use with an appropriate rationale. b (appropriate use with suitable captions): No issues.
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

This is overall pretty solid, but just needs some work (mostly prose work) to be taken to GA. I see you've previously had a GOCE copyedit, which is a good start.

The first point I pause at is the lede, which is very short for a GA, even of its length. I think there's reasonable room to make it more comprehensive without throwing off the balance. It can fit in more information about the play's run and reception, for instance. I'm also unsure about the word 'turbocapitalist', which redirects to an article that barely defines it and is primarily about a specific political ideology. Putting the link to that in Wikipedia-voice risks sounding like an endorsement of a particular ideology, which is an issue for NPOV, and doesn't help define the term. Is there a better option here, possibly a cross-wiki link to hypercapitalism on Wiktionary?

Done --Gazal world (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest seeing if there's any room to expand the plot description, which currently reads like a somewhat dry summary of the events that occur. In particular, is there more room to expand on how Marx reacts to the tour of Kalbadevi? Being as that's the title of the play (and article), it follows that readers will likely want to know about it.

Since, this is one-man play, it has no any concrete plot-line. Also I haven't seen this play, So I am unable to expand the plot at present. Probably, I will do it in future. --Gazal world (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My fellow editor User:Nishidani has expanded the plot section. Please see, what you think ? --Gazal world (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I like the writing style -- it's more enthusiastic and energetic than much Wikipedia-voice, but not to a degree that it's unencyclopedic, and it's appropriate for the topic. However, there are some points that sound off to my native-speaker ear.

One reason prompting his choice of India was he had heard of a certain Mahatma Gandhi and his social activism, and word had come to him that two communist parties, one of which had been named after him, had been established in the country.

This sentence sounds a little odd to me, and I think may be too long/trying to include too many ideas at once. It should probably be split into two seconds, one which expands more on Marx's interest in Gandhi and one which expands more on the political parties.

@Vaticidalprophet: Can you please help me here? Can you please help me to prepare a better version of the above sentences? I am not a native speaker of English. --Gazal world (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Gazal world (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to expectations, however, the piece proved a great success, being performed hundreds of times in Gujarati and in a version of English inflected by Hindi, known as Hinglish.

"...and in Hinglish, a dialect of English influenced by Hindi" sounds more natural.

Done --Gazal world (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Her reservations about the script were that it oversimplified and warped Marx's thinking by making it 'safe' for the Gujarati audience by a perceived bending to the local fascination with money-making. This when, after the financial meltdown of 2008, Marx's analysis of capitalism, as opposed to his discredited political theories, began to attract renewed interest.

I'm really not a fan of these sentences -- they both sound clunky and awkward, and the second one in particular doesn't make a lot of sense when you focus on it.

Done --Gazal world (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While criticising the unnecessary mentions of the director Manoj Shah in the play and the hollowness of the title, Utpal Bhayani praised the way the play presents the more or less balanced integration of Marx's personal life and his works.

The second part of this sentence, after the comma, has some similar issues. "Utpal Bhayani praised the play's integration of Marx's personal life and his works" sounds better to me.

Done --Gazal world (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for now, though I may bring up more later after improvements. Overall, it's good work. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vaticidalprophet. Thank you very much for starting the review, and for your detailed comments. I will address all the questions soon. --Gazal world (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All issues have been addressed. Please check. Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gazal world: I've just made some minor copyedits to the article. I'll be able to provide more advice on the things you've asked in a few days, and I think this is getting quite close to passing. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gazal world: I've decided to put this up for a second opinion. You've done some good improvements, but I have concerns about the prose and coverage, and I'd like to see if any other reviewers share those concerns or not. Vaticidalprophet 11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK Vaticidalprophet. No problem at all. Thanks for such a detailed and careful review. --Gazal world (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a bit too complex for me to examine to see what the remaining issues are. Prose? Well, past in here, below, the exact passages that need rewriting, bulletted, and I for one will offer some variations.Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet: The article seems to me very close to GA now. The lead might be extended a little to describe the Reception briefly. Reception could use one or two more reviews; I noticed this one from Citizen Matters which seems of good quality and worth mentioning. The prose is readable; some editors like to expand contractions like "won't" but it's a minor detail. It might be an idea to wikilink Marxist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Chiswick Chap. Mohan's piece has some interesting details missed by other reviews, and I have added several of them to the page. Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishidani. Thanks for adding Mohan's review. As Chiswick Chap suggested, we could extend the lead a little to describe the Reception briefly. --Gazal world (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be a bit wary, speaking only for myself, of summarizing the reactions section in the lead, despiter WP:Lede. Hard to synthesize in any other terms than 'It has generally be accorded a ite positive critical reception in India, despite a number of technical reservations.' If I get some sleep and manage time wise I may be able to tinker, but, I'd appreciate some other editor trying their hand. Best wishes. It deserves a GA status as it stands.Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: Done as you suggested. See, what you think? It is bit difficult for me to summarise the 'reception' section. Someone more eligible should be requested too to summarise it. --Gazal world (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking quite good now. I'm inclined to promote, but we've gotten a few voices in here and I'd like to double-check Chiswick's and @Nishidani's current positions (although I doubt they'd have any objections). Vaticidalprophet 08:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. For me, nihil obstat. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We must always keep in mind (without making however exceptions for our standards) that this kind of article (WP:Systemic bias) the intrinsic difficulties of doing work like this on enwiki -scarcity of sourcing, unfamiliarity with the subject. I think Gazal world's done a thorough job of meeting all objections; the topic itself, a little known regional reflection, mixing comedy and high seriousness, of one of the major philosophical philosophies that has inflected global history, is fascinating. I'm no expert in the GA area, but I should think the article is easily up to that standard: interesting topic, carefully tuned by several hands, fluent prose. Well done Gazal.Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent to hear!

Passed Vaticidalprophet 08:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet: I haven't received 'GA-passed' message on my talk page. Probably you have missed one step. :) --Gazal world (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done it fine, or at least if I'm missing anything it's not obvious. The issue is likely with the bot, which is pretty glitchy. You might want to bring it up at WT:GAN, unless another editor can spot something I overlooked. Vaticidalprophet 15:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.