This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism 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.
This is a good article, but seems more like a treatise than an encyclopedic article. There is the question of whether so many quotes should be loaded into the references or made more encyclopedic by either a) including some in the article text; or b) simply giving the references without so much overloading. What do other people think? I notice the form of referencing (using a template?) seems to create "scroll hogging" and makes it difficult and tedious to scan the article for copy editing. There are probably arguments for and against this style, but that's my argument against it. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is a good article, I think we can decrease the quotes + copy edits. Bluptr (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, I will look into improving the article. I also have more stuff to add to this. Nvineeth (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose merge proposal. This 61k article is a daughter article of Ramakrishna, already long at 67k. According to Wikipedia:Summary style: "The parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects." Priyanathtalk 18:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The split was done in a POV way. It's wrong and dishonest to put all of the information that you favor at the main article and all of the information that you'd like to hide at the daughter article. Also --- there's no substantive difference between the "views" on Ramakrishna content and the "books" on Ramakrishna content. — goetheanॐ 22:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, This article summarizes all the scholarship, giving due weightage. From what is apparent from the discussion, you want to include only Kali's Child and exclude all the other scholars. So there is no question of "wrong and dishonest". What need to be addressed is undue weightage and systematic bias. also, as priyanath pointed out, the article size is another factor. Nvineeth (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)