Jump to content

Talk:Ramprasad Sen/GA2

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

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA and like the article very much. I have just a few questions:

  • Are there sources for such claims as, "Ramprasad is credited with creating a new compositional form that combined the Bengali folk style of Baul music with classical melodies and kirtan"?
  • "Ramprasad was sent to a Sanskrit tol (school) where he learned Sanskrit grammar, literature, Persian, and Hindi." Who sent him, his parents? Are Persian and Hindi considered languages or something else?
  • "he was married to a girl named Sarvani when he was twenty-two years old." - Was it his parents who arranged the marriage, or who married him to the girl?
  • "Even though he performed his duties sincerely, he would regularly meditate on Kali and write devotional songs to her." - Are such statements as this legend/folklore, or are they historical fact?
  • I am not clear what language the poems are written in. Do you clarify somewhere?
  • The poems are wonderful, but are you quoting copyrighted translations or works?
  • Also, the poem in the pullquote - are those notes quoted literally from a copyrighted work. I am not sure what the rules are regarding this.

Otherwise, this is a very nice article. I will put the article on hold while we deal with these questions. Then I will conplete the review. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattisse, thanks for the review! I'll answer the one question regarding a passage/source that I added, and try get to more later if Nvineeth doesn't answer in the next couple days. Regarding your first question, that particular sentence ("Ramprasad is credited with...") and the following sentence are both sourced from the footnote that's provided, which leads here[1]. Also, Ramprasad wrote in Bengali, which is not at all clear in the article, so that of course should/will be added. Thanks, Priyanath talk 00:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I am not clear what language the poems are written in. Do you clarify somewhere?" - It is present in the lead: " His bhakti poems, known as Ramprasadi, are still popular in Bengal—they are mostly addressed to the Hindu goddess Kali and written in Bengali."
  • "Ramprasad was sent to a Sanskrit tol (school) where he learned Sanskrit grammar, literature, Persian, and Hindi" The reference as well as the text suggests they are languages--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—§§§§§§§—

  • "he was married to a girl named Sarvani..." -- this was an arranged marriage, I have clarified it now.
  • "Even though he performed his duties sincerely, he would regularly meditate on Kali..." -- I have tried to rephrase.
  • Yes the notes in the pullquote are quoted literally.
  • You have aptly raised your concerns about copyright; Few of the translations are in public domain and few aren't. let me check them and get back. Meanwhile we can refer to Wikipedia:Quote#Quoting_copyrighted_text & Wikipedia:Quote#Quotations_and_fair_use for additional guidelines. If you see any copyright problems, pls take appropriate actions.

Thanks for the GA review. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • The 3 poems come from copyrighted works (translations). With respect to Wikipedia:Quote#Quoting_copyrighted_text & Wikipedia:Quote#Quotations_and_fair_use, does any editor see any problems with copyrights? From the guideline, "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea.". Others pls raise concerns if any. --Nvineeth (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, from the guideline, "The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted...". I think the first poem in the quote box may be considered "substantial", but not the 2nd and 3rd poems in section "Poetry". "Substantial" is subjective, so I am not very sure .

--Nvineeth (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I truly am unsure, especially about the poem with notations from the account book. I would like to hear the opinions of others, especially those knowledgable about copyright. The poem from the account book, with notations, substantially adds to the article, in my opinion. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revisiting the article, I still am unsure if the sources are reporting historical fact or traditional lore. How much of his history is documented as accepted historical fact? I cannot tell by the books used as references, as they are obscure and I cannot track down the information. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tried to clarify the traditional lore, by adding prefixes such as "According to traditional accounts" etc., But his life, like other saints of that era, is a "mixture of biography and legend"[2]. (Should this line be added back?) Regarding tracking down of information, there are links to google books—major ones being Harding 1998, Lex Hixons et al, McDaniel. You may check these and other books in the references section. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the mention of "mixture of biography and legend" should be added back. The reader gets the feeling that is the case, but it is best to be explicit. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Nvineeth (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
  • Perhaps the mention of "mixture of biography and legend" should also be in the lead, so that it is clear that it refers to much or all of the biographical information.
  • Also, there is an error in the references, as there is a big red error message. Otherwise, the article is looking good.

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the reference problem (using a different reference that put it a bit differently), and also added the issue of legend and bio to the lead. If it could be rephrased, fine by me (I trust your editing and style much more than my own, Mattisse!). Feel free to override any other minor copy edits I'm making. Thanks, Priyanath talk 00:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Clearly and succinctly written b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS guidelines
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Well referenced and adequately addresses the folkloric aspects of the subject b (citations to reliable sources): References are reliable c (OR): No OR
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Covers major aspects b (focused): Remains focused on topic
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: Neutral
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.: Stable
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: Pass

A good job of dealing with an important subject very relevant today but that has little verifiable history in the normal sense. Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ramprasad_Sen/GA2&oldid=1089879592"