Jump to content

Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Titodutta (talk · contribs) 15:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review begins

[edit]
Let's start

I am starting review the article. Please feel free to join! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First read

I have read the article twice before starting review. It seems a well-written article. Undoubtedly the editors of the article has done a great team work. But, long way to go before making any conclusion! I'll keep on adding notes and comments below. Hope for the best! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First read comments

[edit]
First things to look for
Basic problems Comment
The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability ☒N No problem!
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{POV}} ☒N No major problem!
Some information available in Citation needed section below in this GA review 2 talk page
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars ☒N No!
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. ☒N No problem

First look assessment: checkY Ok! There is not any "basic problem" in the article, and we can start the review in detail now. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

[edit]
 Fixed Well, since it was a minor error, without wasting time, I have gone ahead and fixed it. You can see this edit. I have replaced the problematic reference with a reference from United Nations News Centre website. Feel free to change/modify it! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 16:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awards section

[edit]
Some comments on Awards section

The "Awards" section seems to be a duplicate of Influence section with two long quotes of Albert Einstein.
Albert Einstein also said the following about Mahatma Gandhi:
Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this walked the earth in flesh and blood.
- This is a huge compliment but, I feel, not an award!
I suggest to concentrate mainly on "Awards" Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi has/had received in "Awards" section! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 16:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneAyanosh (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information - Details

[edit]
1939 Tripuri Congress! "Pattabhi Sitaramayya's defeat is my defeat"!

There is no information in the article on Bhogaraju Pattabhi Sitaramayya and/or 1939 Tripuri Congress or Gandhi's comments:
1) Pattabhi Sitaramayya's defeat will be my defeat"
or later
2) "Pattabhi Sitaramayya's defeat is my defeat"!--Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 20:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have added the point in the Negotiations section but still you should have a look at it to check the citation that i added. Ayanosh (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1924 Belgaum Congress - M.K.Gandhi President

In his lifetime M.K.Gandhi became president of Indian National Congress only once, and that is in 1924, Belgaum Congress. {See: President of the Indian National Congress). I can not find any information on this in the article! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 20:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this information is a bit trivial in context of the whole article,more of a did-you-know-that quiz question than any essential info on the man because neither the session nor "Gandhi in the session" was notable.Still it is a point that can be discussed. Ayanosh (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources if you are planning to add it Prisoner of Hope Page 183 "As president of the Decemeber session of congress held at Belgaum, Gandhihelped to secure...." Gandhi, the Forgotten Mahatma Page 17 ""At this time Gandhi intended to retire from the congress and from political life, but he was persuaded to preside over the congress session to be held at Belgaum"" --sarvajna (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Feroze Jehangir Gandhi - M.K.Gandhi's adopted son

M.K.Gandhi adopted Feroze Jehangir Gandhi who married Indira Nehru. In the article I can not see any information on this! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 18:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there willl be a lack of reference to back that point.One only needs to see the talk page of feroze gandhi to see how disputed the issue of his religion is.Religion is a contentious issue and until we get a credible reference where he explicitly states his change of religion on being adopted by Mahatma Gandhi,it is too disputable a point to make in this article.
And untill then ,the second lok sabha profile http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/biodata_1_12/713.htm with his father written as Shri Jehangir Gandhi ,should be of some assurance as to his birth religion. Ayanosh (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doing some studies below --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification please

[edit]

Entry 1-5

[edit]

It is claimed that Vallabhbhai Patel, who grew up in a Swaminarayan houshold was attracted to Gandhi due to this aspect of Gandhi's doctrine.
Comment: Who claimed it? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 17:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence:Khan argues that Gandhi's death and funeral helped....
Comment:Khan? Write full name please. In "Assassination" section this is the first and the only sentence where you have mentioned Khan! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence: Sankhdher argues that Gandhism is not a systematic position in metaphysics or in political philosophy...
Comment: Who is Sankhdher? If he is a researcher on Gandhism, you can write like this, M. M. Sankhdher, a researcher on Gandhism, argues... Also note, we don't have any article in Wikipedia article? Is he a really a (world) famous writer/researcher?--Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 02:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence: Cribb argues that Gandhi's thought evolved over time
Comment: Who is Cribb? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 02:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence: He opposed purdah, child marriage....
Comment: Purdah is not a common word, link the article Purdah, you can also add the word 'practice' here! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 03:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

link is done but i think when you look up for purdah you come to know it is a practice and the rest of its details but using practice in the article doesn't add any value.Ayanosh (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)ayanosh[reply]
"world famous researcher" is not a Wikipedia criteria for RS. The journals are world famous. Rjensen (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entry 6-10

[edit]

Sentence: Gokhale argues that Gandhi took his philosophy of history from Hinduism and Jainism, supplemented by selected Christian traditions and ideas of Tolstoy and Ruskin....
Comment: 1) Please write full name of Gokhale. Hope you are not talking about Gopal Krishna Gokhale, 2) Write full name of Ruskin --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

already  Done --sarvajna (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence: Spodek argues for the importance of the culture of Gujarat in shaping his methods.
 Comment: Explain who is Spodek. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --sarvajna (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence: Watson argues that Gandhi based satyagraha on the Vedantic ideal of self-realization, and notes it...
Comment: Watson? Write full name at least! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: He is Bruce Watson. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 05:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence: Hay argues that Gandhi in London...
Comment: Hey, who is Hay? :) Write full name please! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: He is Stephen Hay. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 05:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence: Alter argues that Gandhi's fixation on diet and celibacy ...
Comment: Full name of Alter please! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the full names are in the footnotes and are not needed in the text. Scholars are typically referenced by surname. Rjensen (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will try to get second opinion! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can use just surname, you can add descriptors with the names too (eg. ("economist", "scholar", "professor")! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
see the guidelines at WP:INTEXT that explicitly approve this usage. Rjensen (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! 1) In the examples of WP:INTEXT, full name have been used (not just surname). 2) All the people mentioned those examples have Wikipedia article on them, so descriptor is not needed! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 04:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "name" we use in the text refers not actually to the person but to the RS that is cites in the footnote. That is "Jensen says xxx" really means "The article by Jensen says ...". Rjensen (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Second opinion: See second opinion here --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 04:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The RS rules refers to the quality control process exercised by the scholarly community. Writing "XXX says ..." (with a footnote to article ABC) means that article ABC is the authoritative source. The RS rules apply to ABC--the article-- (not to XXX) and especially the quality of vetting by the journal publishing it. WP:RS says: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." In other words, an article in a scholarly journal represents a viewpoint of the scholarly community, and not merely the opinion of XXX. Rjensen (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was continued in Good article Talk page! --Tito Dutta (Message) 16:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entry 11-15

[edit]
  • Section: Infobox (other Names) "Other Names Mahatma Gandhi, Bapu, Gandhiji"

Doubt: Is "Gandhiji" a name? Ji a salutation which we can add with any name (eg. Rjensenji, Ayanoshji, Karthikji, Ratnakarji etc)! I know by Gandhiji only M.K.Gandhi is meant, but still, here actually we are using the surname Gandhi and using Ji to show honour (which is similar to Mr. ABC, or Lord DEF)--Tito Dutta (Message) 17:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done See #22 in "Reviewer's edits" below! --Tito Dutta Message 15:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section: Current impact within India
    Sentence: Gandhi's date of death is commemorated as Martyrs' Day in India..
    Comment:: Please rewrite this sentence (or add a note or something) to clarify that several days in India are commemorated as Martyrs' day(s). Currently it sounds, only M.K.Gandhi's birthday is Martyr's day in India! --Tito Dutta (Message) 22:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction needed

[edit]
  • Satygraha or satyagraha?

Throughout the article you have sometimes used first letter capital in the word "Satyagraha", and sometimes you have used first letter small. Change all to either capital or small (i.e. either Satyagraha or satyagraha). --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Changed all to caps. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 05:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thanks for making the changes, and special thanks for updating here. It gives reviewer a chance to discuss on the changes you have made. Well, you have changed all to capital S (i.e. you are using Satyagraha), no problem!
But, also note you have used small s in the word "satya" (section Truth and Satyagraha). I feel, if we use first letter capital in "Satyagraha" (which is Satya+Agraha actually), we should also use first letter capital in the word Satya too. What do you think? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 17:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel then the section should be named satyagraha, i.e. s in small and not caps! What say? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 03:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel when you are using first letter capital in the word Satyagraha, you should not change it in section header! What do you think?--Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 04:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harijan

There is an article in Wikipedia Harijan, link the article! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 02:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 05:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add the Gandhian economics article in Gandhian economics section using Template:Main. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 18:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Okay, have done it myself! See details in "Reviewer's edits" section below! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 18:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

[edit]

India, with its rapid economic modernization and urbanization, has rejected Gandhi's economics but accepted much of his politics and continues to revere his memory.
This portion contains very sensitive information, specially when you are saying, currently Gandhi's economics is rejected in India, you need to provide some good citation here! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 17:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the citation is given = #167 (Yardley). The statement is not "sensitive" in light of India's recent policy of very rapid modernization --Gandhi wanted people to make their own cloth. Rjensen (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read the NY Times article before posting. Do you mean these sentences? 1) "His vision of a village-dominated economy was shunted aside during his lifetime as rural romanticism" 2) "India also has an urbanizing consumer-driven economy and a growing middle class that indulges itself in cars, apartments and other goods".
Also link the article Gandhian economics in the sentence: India, with its rapid economic modernization and urbanization, has rejected Gandhi's economics --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 00:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
link is done. Yardley cites support the statement that "rejected Gandhi's economics" -- is there some alternative RS that says otherwise? "Hand spinning, weaving, and village industries were Gandhi's prescription for economic revival and self- reliance in rural India. While rejecting Gandhian economics, leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru could not dispense with khadi..." [Reena Nanda - 2002]; "National development was led by a generation of Western-educated leaders such as Nehru of India ... Rejecting endogenous development options (eg Gandhian economics), these post- colonial leaders..." [B. N. Ghosh - 2001]; "while its development policies are a strong repudiation of Gandhian economics, by paying daily obeisance to the Mahatma in its official rituals the state tries to symbolically..." [Ghanshyam Shah - 2002]; ", the Indian planners considered the Gandhian model as reactionary — a threat to Indian modernisation — and as such, rejected it totally." [Economic and political weekly 1978 Volume 13, Part 4] etc Rjensen (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article link will be helpful here! Thanks for adding! Talking about the NY Times article, there the word "reject" has been used twice in the NY article, but those are not directly related to what we are saying in Wikipedia article. In my last post I have quoted two sentences from the NY article. But, still that NY article is not a good reference here, I feel!
About the other references you have mentioned, can you please add (some of) these in the article? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 03:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There don't think so there's anymore [citation needed] tag. Provided two new sources and tweaked one, I mean expanded the inline citations. This and this are the new sourced I had added. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 18:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section: Early life and background
    Sentence: In 1885, when Gandhi was 15, the couple's first child was born, but survived only a few days.
    Comment: You have added a page from Gandhi's autobiography - My Father's Death and My Double Shame which is a very sensitive portion and all I can find there on Gandhi's first child is Before I close this chapter of my double shame. I may mention that the poor mite that was born to my wife scarcely breathed for more than three or four days. Can you add second reference?--Tito Dutta (Message) 23:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have recently tweaked a reference here. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a reference too, hence no more citation needed now :) Have a look here. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and death years

[edit]

You have added birth and death years of Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910) and Hermann Kallenbach (1871–1945), but is it really necessary to add the years in the article which is on MK.Gandhi? You can just link articles with these names (the article Hermann Kallenbach is already linked). Since you have not added birth and death years for other personalities (like Subhas Chandra Bose, Nehru, Einstein), I feel you can think of removing years! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message)

the years are needed for these particular people to show their ages when he was in close contact with them. Rjensen (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with titodutta;there is no point in writing everyones date of birth and death.You can always visit their articles for that.[[User talk:ayanosh|T]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/ayanosh|M]] (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)ayanosh[reply]

 Done The requested change has been done. Ayanosh (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)ayanosh[reply]

Images

[edit]
Image size

The 1969 postage stamp image is too large (currently it is 200px) in comparison too other images in the article. Since it is an image of a postage stamp, make it smaller. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 04:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Done.Ayanosh (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)ayanosh[reply]

Issue with portals

[edit]

I think the number of portals in the article should be reduced.Biography portal should remain for obvious reasons and also the india portal as he is a very important figure for the nation, but i doubt the presence of other portals specifically the Hinduism portal it should not be there as he is not an important figure in the hindu religion, he was merely a follower of hinduism who believed in secularism.Also the social and political philosopy, anarchism,liberalism,philosophy,human rights portals look a bit out of place.Ayanosh (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so that should be an issue! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 03:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you could elaborate your point.I am specifically averse to the hinduism portal but i also doubt many of the others. :) Ayanosh (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, I was the editor who added many of those links to the portal bar months ago. My reason at the time was based on the prominence each topic seemed—to me—to be related to this biography. If I recall properly (and this was a while ago) previous versions of this article played up the relationship Gandhi's legacy had to each philosophy, so it seemed reasonable at the time. There should be little doubt on its face that Gandhi has influenced various liberal and socialist philosophical perspectives regarding violence. While not influential in anarchism, several references to anarchism, such as his relationship to Tolstoy (also not identified as an anarchist, but associated with it in legacy), his written and spoken references to his views on anarchy and his position when asked as a "philosophical anarchist". He is recorded as having read Kropotkin's work, but the degree to which he agreed with it is not known, to my knowledge. Regarding Hinduism... well, he was Hindu. --Cast (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think my point regarding Hinduism is still not being countered, that he was NOT an important figure for the religion,he was merely a follower;father of a nation yes; but merely a follower nevertheless nothing more than that with respect to the religion.and you don't put a hinduism portal on every hindu's page......
Regarding philosophy i think that though he may have given a new political tool in the form of non violence and civil disobedience but these were really traditional philosophies of the many religions that influenced him.These were not "his philosophy" ,they were borrowed ideas but to his credit he converted them to a potent political tool and it came to worldwide attention; but the fact remains that he was primarily a politician as he himself used to say and maybe because his beliefs and his ideas were a bit different from the prevalent methods, it gives an impression of philosophy but he was NOT a philosopher in the true sense of the word like socrates, aristotle, kant, hume, confucius, kabir etc.
Regarding anarchism as you yourself pointed out he was not influential in this field,your reference to tolstoy is weak as first of all tolstoy himself was not anarchist as you pointed out it is in legacy that he is asociated with it ,still in argument we can say that even though gandhi agreed with nonviolent and passive resistance to the state it was more on the lines of oppposing the colonising state and NOT every state which is further proved by his difference with tolstoy on political involvement WITHIN the system.Also considering him anarchist would be injustice to Errico Malatesta,Henry David Thoreau,Emma Goldman and yes Peter Kropotkin with whom again there is no conclusive evidence regarding gandhi's agreement on various issues.
Also if you see the ethics portal it has philosophers who dealt with ethics and were influential in ethics as a subject of discussion and academics not necessarily practicing it which is a highly subjective way to look at a person so i also doubt it.
I would also suggest to have second thoughts about Social and political philosophy and human rights portals.
Sorry to write so long a comment. :) Ayanosh (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historians of Hinduism consider him very important. for example: 1) "For most Hindus Gandhi formulated normative Hinduism for this century. He carried the social aspects of the other paths mentioned earlier to their logical conclusion. Consider untouchability." Arvind Sharma, Our Religions (1994) p 17. 2) "Modern Hinduism found its most eloquent expression in the politics of Mahatma Gandhi." Mark Juergensmeyer, Global religions (2003) p 59; 3) "Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948) doubtless occupies an altogether distinct place in the history of modern Hinduism." Stearns, ed. The Oxford encyclopedia of the modern world Volume 4 p 13 (2008). Rjensen (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding anarchism, I don't think there is a way to figuratively kick Gandhi out of the anarchist tent without hazard. There are a few social and political principals upon which the philosophy stands or falls, but disagreement on tactics is a recurring theme in anarchist history. Each of the eminent anarchists you put forth disagreed with others at certain points (and for that matter, Thoreau was not himself an anarchist, but like Tolstoy, has been retroactively regarded as one by some within the camp). Emma Goldman disagreed with Kropotkin when she chose to engage in middle-class outreach to secure "civil rights" which Kropotkin refused to acknowledge as existing (they have no objective existence, and are a product of classical liberal philosophy). Kropotkin believed wars between nation states were of tactical value for anarchists, and encouraged anarchists to support The Great War, much to Goldman and Malatesta's dismay. The great thrust of Malatesta's anarchist activism was toward labor struggle, while Goldman started there and went beyond it to focus on individualist lifestyle, aesthetics and feminism. You didn't even mention Voltairine de Clare, but you may well have so that I could have brought up how she fueded with Goldman over property rights, while Lucy Parsons fueded with Goldman for the latter's lifestyle advocacy of sexual liberation. (Contraception? That's not working class!) During the Spanish Civil War, some anarchists, much to the dismay of others, engaged in political office to support the war effort, and they believed, to safeguard the anarchist revoltion in Catalonia. Many, including myself, would disagree with that behavior as poor tactics, or even as anti-anarchist, but I wouldn't say they stopped being anarchists entirely; and if they did, how long did they stop being anarchists? For the rest of their lives, or only while the war was being fought? Perhaps only while they were in office? While Gandhi may never have campaigned in the cause of anarchy, his spoken sentiments leave it clear where his sympathies lay, though they may be rightfully considered limp and arrested, compared to his work for the national liberation of India. I don't think we can safely disqualify him as an anarchist, but we may report a disagreement in his anarchist bona fides if we have a source to cite on the matter. --Cast (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking of names

[edit]

Per WP:OVERLINK, names and terms should generally be linked once only in the body of an article, the first time they appear (they can also be linked in the lead), although if the terms also appear in captions and tables and such, they can be linked there as well. In this article, some names are linked more frequently, such as "Gopal Krishna Gokhale" and "Indian National Congress". One such link, "B. R. Ambedkar", occurs in successive paragraphs. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree. This is a very long article and many readers will not be starting at the beginning and working their way through the whole thing, but instead will focus on a few topics. That is a justification for a little double-linking of key terms. Rjensen (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some changes, see here. --Tito Dutta (Message) 16:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stable attribute criteria in template

[edit]

There seems to be a misunderstanding of the "day to day" clause in today's 75% pass for the Stable attribute. The criteria are very specific: "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute" (bolding mine). Improvements can be made daily and be considered a good thing according to these criteria. As of this writing, the article hasn't even been edited in four days, and the only edits for over two weeks have involved article links, source citations, minor copyediting, and a single paragraph expansion. Neither edit warring nor content dispute is currently occurring, or has recently occurred. While this could change tomorrow, the fact remains that the article is currently stable and has been for a while. If a grade is to be given for the Stable section, it ought to be an unqualified Pass; at the moment, the article appears to be flunking because of a partial pass. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad! My comment in that criteria actuallywas copy pasted by another editor. I forgot to add "Pass" there. Yes, the article is currently stable. You can add your comments in stable criteria below. --Tito Dutta Message 14:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer's edits

[edit]

Review template

[edit]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. This is a well written article, the prose is clear and concise. --Tito Dutta (Message) 17:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have not found any copyright violation problem. --Tito Dutta Message 16:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
MoS guidelines

1. Lead section → checkY Okay. ☒NAccording to the guidelines there should not be more than 4 paragraphs in lead, currently there are five paragraphs in the lead. But, since paragraphs are short, I personally don't think it is a big problem, but editors can think to merge paragraphs here!
2. Section/organization/Layout → checkY Okay
3. Words to watch → checkY Okay. I have not found any peacock term or puffery in this article. There is not any Offensive material in the article.
--Tito Dutta Message 14:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fiction → checkY Not applicable here!
5. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists→ checkY No problem.
5. MoS Images → checkY True! See also section 6a and 6b of this assessment template. The article follows all the guidelines of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images
Over all comment: checkYThe article follows the most of the rules, directions and guidelines mentioned in Wikipedia:Manual of Style.. there were some problem in Wikipedia:MOS#Punctuation, those have been corrected during the review.
☒NBut, there are still some problems in use of italic in foreign term, for example "Swaraj" has been italicized, but "ahimsa" has not been italicized. "Satya" has been italicized, but not "Satyagraha", italic text has been used for "dhoti", "charkha", but not for "Sarvodaya", "Mahatma" has been italicized but not "Ba" (in the sentence shortened to "Kasturba", and affectionately to "Ba") etc
Over all result: checkYI'll give a "pass" here!
--Tito Dutta Message 16:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Material and information in this article have been attributed to reliable published source~ --Tito Dutta Message 11:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). The article provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements --Tito Dutta Message 11:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2c. it contains no original research. There is not any problem related to Wikipedia:No original research. Almost all material added to this articles have been attributable to a reliable published source! --Tito Dutta (Message) 17:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The article is very well written article on M.K.Gandhi's life. It addresses the main aspects of the topic. I'll give a pass here! --Tito Dutta Message 14:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). It is a long article, but there is not any problem with Wikipedia:Summary style. the article has been split into multiple articles. I have read the article multiple times and I have not found any unnecessary details. In GA1 review, reviewer felt the Lead is too long and it was suggested to trim the section etc (see GA1 reviewer's suggestions here. Currently there are 2623 characters in lead (it is the count of the output, not the code, I copied and pasted the text from lead into Libre office writer and counted words/characters). So, it is okay too. --Tito Dutta Message 14:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Information have been presented here proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Content has b written from a neutral point of view. Though some people have felt there should be a criticism section too in the article, as in Talk:Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi/Archive_8#Criticisms or Talk:Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi/Archive_9#Pls_add_Criticism_section It is written just as to praise Gandhi etc.. But, we can avoid these points since 1) These are not directly related to Good article criteria and more importantly, 2) I have found, the current content of the article is written from neutral point of view. I'll give a pass here, but also I think the editors can think/discuss on it in article's talk page whether they need a 'criticism' section in the article. If they have discussed already and reached a consensus, they can add the discussion URL below. --Tito Dutta Message 02:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. On 23 March a large portion was deleted which was fixed on the same day. If we see article's history, we'll notice editors of this article are constantly working to improve the article.
Comparison of article versions:
*3 March and 3 May– time difference 2 months
*3 April and 3 May— time difference 1 month
So, it can not be said, the content of the article does not change by day to day. But, an article which gets more than 300,000 digital footprints each months, it is not very uncommon. And most of these edits in last two months are constructive. I'd like to give a ¾ pass here.--Tito Dutta (Message) 08:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. There is not any major problem with Wikipedia:File copyright tags! Images are properly tagged with their copyright status --Tito Dutta Message 11:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images (and media files) are related to topics! Captions are also suitable, going to review the caption once again!--Tito Dutta (Message) 22:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The images have suitable captions-clearly identifies the subject of the picture! And I have made one or two changes! Pass here! --Tito Dutta (Message) 22:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi–Yes, currently a Good Article.
For last one month I have read this article multiple times and I feel it is a good article. The article is written very well, contains factually accurate and verifiable information, are broad in coverage! Actually, I completed the review at the end of April (28-29 April), and had no doubt that it is a good article. Sorry for the delay to finish the review. Today is May 8. On 8 May 1933, Gandhi began a 21-day fast of self-purification to help the Harijan movement. So, I think we can finish the review today. The editors/contributors have done a very impressive work here. --Tito Dutta Message 12:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this current version of the article deserves a good article status, doing it now. Will add the GA tags in talk page, article etc in next few minutes. --Tito Dutta Message 17:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the lede is now shorter at 4 paragraphs and flows better; it makes some new points (it names Nehru not his assassin) Rjensen (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid search of a needle in a haystack

[edit]

The review discussion is so long that finding the unsolved issues here will be like finding needle in a haystack. So, I better try to make list of the most important issues which I feel needs attention:

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Volunteer Barnstar

[edit]
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Volunteer Barnstar
I am elated to see your excellent contribution and super excellent teamwork in Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi article. And special thanks for your active contribution in GA review discussion.
I am giving Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Volunteer Barnstar to the–
  • Top 7 contributors of the article (till today, click on the link to see the names).
  • Top 3 contributors of the GA review discussion (till today, click on the link to see the names, don't count me).
Once again thanks for your contribution!

Note: If you are seeing this barnstar in someone's user page, you can also see this barnstar in GA review page where it was actually posted..--Tito Dutta Message 19:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi/GA2&oldid=1126443048"