Jump to content

Talk:Maitreyi/GA1

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: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 10:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on Hinduism or Indian history but this seems to be a fascinating subject so I'll give the article a review if I may. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
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).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Comments: At present, some of the language veers into slightly non-neutral territory, particularly when dealing with issues of religion and spirituality. For instance, statements like "She was a spiritual person dedicated to the worship of God" reads as a bit too adulatory and could be rephrased. Moreover, shouldn't the term "God" link to an article on Vedic theology or something of that nature? Another example of this is the wording about the fact that she was "able to discuss the highest spiritual truths of life"; again, this wording appears to suggest that there is an objective validity to Vedic concepts of the "spiritual truths of life", which isn't a neutral perspective. This could definitely be rephrased to avoid this problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this question of neutrality, I worry that Maitreyi's biography is presented uncritically. The amount of detail about her life seems astonishing for someone who lived thousands of years ago! How do we know that this information is historically accurate? What are the textual sources from which this information was obtained and when were they written? Let's get some source criticism in here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More sources have been added and relevant texts have been mentioned. Appreciation section has been added now.--Nvvchar. 15:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend adding more citations into this article. For instance, there is a tendency only to place a citation at the end of a paragraph, whereas ideally there should be one at the end of every sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The images used are fine but could perhaps be improved. Do we have any images depicting Maitreyi herself? Moreover, with the Sarasvati image could we improve the caption by describing when the image was created? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite brief and I suspect that it could be lengthened. For instance, surely there is more information on the reception and impact of Maitreyi in modern India and Hinduism? We could definitely do with some information on the historical sources from which her life has been reconstructed; we give her biography but don't explain where that biographical information originally comes from. This is not a prerequisite for passing at GA level but should be borne in mind, particularly if you want to take this article on to FAC in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Issues have been elaborated now. Date have been revised as there is no acceptable dates.Nvvchar. 15:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: As you have made some significant changes to the prose to the article, I shall give it a re-read through and see if there are any additional points. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Was Yajnavalkya a "Hindu sage"? As I understand it, Hinduism did not exist during this period but is a later development that emerged from the Brahmanical response to Buddhism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was a Vedic period sage. Clarified.Nvvchar. 05:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am okay with this change. But "Vedic Hinduism" is a well accepted terminology, see Witzel for example. Etymologically, the first use of the English-language terms Greek and Greek philosophy are traceable to 14th century, the terms Christianity and Christian philosophy is traceable to early 16th century, the terms Buddhism, Zen and Buddhist philosophy to 18th century, and so on. The term Buddhist, amongst other things, includes all literature and scholars before the word Buddhism appeared in 18th century, same has been the practice with respect to the terms Hindu and Hinduism. Yajnavalkya is referred to as an ancient Hindu sage (see Judith E. Walsh (2006), An Anthology of Bengali Domestic Manuals, ISBN 978-8190227230, page 235). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Robert Van De Weyer..." Who is he? Why does his opinion matter? The same goes for Max Muller. Make their identities explicit so that the average, non-expert reader won't have any problem in understanding. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Explained.

There are still a fair number of issues here. While there have been improvements in the use of sourcing, the prose really isn't up to GA quality. There are still references to specialist terms (for instance, "the Madhyamdina and Kanva Vedic schools") which are not linked or explained, and I'm not sure that a non-specialist reader would be able to fully understand a lot of it. Sections such as "Maitreyi-Yajnavalkya dialogue" switch from past to present tense and back again. There are various instances or poor or incorrect grammar and punctuation. The references are not formatted uniformly. This being the case, I would not be happy passing this as a GA at this time, and so I will fail it for now. I would suggest that you take the article to Peer Review to ask for an un-involved editor to take a look at the prose before nominating it as a Good Article again. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl May like to re-review. Renominated after review by Guild of Copy Editors.Nvvchar. 04:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maitreyi/GA1&oldid=967080883"