Talk:Josephine MacLeod

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Swami Vivekananda (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Swami Vivekananda, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Swami Vivekananda on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article was last assessed in September 2013.
WikiProject India (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Close paraphrasing issues[edit]

This article too closely paraphrases at least some of its source. For an example of close paraphrasing, consider the following example from [1]:

Even after Swamiji's death, Josephine continued to be an admirer of the Ramakrishna Order and often came and stayed at the Belur Math headquarters of the Order for many days.

The article says:

Even after Swami Vivekananda's death in 1902, Josephine continued to be an admirer of the Ramakrishna Order and often came and stayed at the Belur Math headquarters of the Order for many days.

There are other passages that similarly follow too closely. I do not know if other sources are also closely paraphrased.

While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. So that it will not constitute a derivative work, this article should be revised. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

Alternatively, if the material can be verified to be public domain or permission is provided, we can use the original text with proper attribution.

Please let me know at my talk page if you have questions about this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Few weeks ago I created this article, just today I saw someone went to AFC to create the same article. Naturally it got denied as article already existed! He then copied all portion from AFC and pasted in the article! Suggestions? Manually rewriting is going to be a tough work (for me at least)--Tito Dutta (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Fansite[edit]

The tone of this article is not neutral and encyclopedic. It tends towards the fansite with phrasing like "so queenly in her approach" or "poignantly extolled". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

  • You are edit warring. Why did not you mention the issues while tagging the article. Just Fanpov does not mean anything. I have removed the sentence. Anything else? Your quick response will be very much appreciated. TitoDutta 04:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The Twinkle tagger does not include a space for rationale; that doesn't make the tag illegitimate. I suggest you go through the whole article and check whether it conforms with WP:NPOV and expectations for encyclopedic phrasing. You might find the relevant sections of WP:BETTER to be helpful in considering terminology and phrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Titodutta, but I also think this article could do with the removal of some adjectives. I might not have tagged it, but I see Nikkimaria's point. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • {{Fanpov}} is a useless template. When I tried to add comment, it broke the template. A much better way is— tag the problematic portions/sections/setences, unless the whole article needs to be rewritten. I have removed adjectives and rewritten some portions, Please check now. Your quick reply will be once more appreciated. TitoDutta 04:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • What tag would you prefer? I usually tag the whole thing when I see multiple instances of problematic phrasings. And there still are, such as "erudite Vedantic lectures" (not supported by the source) and "people who mattered" (according to...?). Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed both. TitoDutta 05:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Notability?[edit]

Hi, in reading this article I was not able to determine the notability of the subject. Since it's been around awhile, I thought I'd ask here rather than tag it. Any clarification anyone can provide would be appreciated. Dictioneer (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

  • She was an exponent of Vedanta and a freind-devotee of Vivekananda. There are few dedicated biographies on her such as this, this. I have not got this books still. These book are needed to expand her "last life". TitoDutta 16:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)