Jump to content

Talk:Banglapedia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBanglapedia has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 7, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
July 21, 2007Good article nomineeListed
January 14, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
April 4, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
May 17, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Merge from Sirajul Islam

[edit]

Please refer to Talk:Sirajul Islam#Merge. --Ragib 08:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:


Passages like this are neither referenced nor NPOV:

It is easy to navigate, laid out in alphabetical order and is prefaced by an extremely detailed essay by the Chief Editor. However, there is also a section explaining how to use the Banglapedia, which clarifies issues such as date systems, contributors, cross references, and headings.

¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 00:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I have put this on hold. Try to find more references (there are still unsourced statements). ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 04:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All concerns have been addressed, congrats! ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 20:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vidyakalpadruma...?

[edit]

Do we really need the boxed quote on this topic? It doesn't seem to be directly related to Banglapedia. Is it there simply as an example of a Banglapedia entry? If so it should be properly marked as such. Arman Aziz 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That boxed quote is irrelevant to this entry. I don't think it's an example of Banglapedia entry. It should immediately be removed.--NAHID 11:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a Banglapedia entry (regardless of what you think, that fact remains a fact) and it also imparts information about one of the examples of earlier attempts at a Bangla encyclopedia. Quotes from a book to give an idea of the quality is a standard practice and hardly seems to irrelevant, especially as it is close to the subject in discussion. Why do you think it should be immediately removed? I guess that "properly marked as such" thing can be done. Any proposition to that end? Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned in the box that it is being used as a sample. Arman (Talk) 11:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted from GA

[edit]

I have delisted this article from Good Article status because of the lack of reliable sources used in the article. I just did a sweep of all references used, and I deleted almost 15 (including one that was a Wikipedia mirror site!) that failed WP:RS. This article needs to be resourced with reliable sources (no sources from Banglapedia.org). The lead also needs to be expanded to a size more acceptable per WP:LEAD. The lead should be a comprehensive outline of the entire article. At the moment, it is very brief, and doesn't summarize later sections of the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do I call this? A misunderstanding? The primary source was used to refer to the number of articles, the number of contributors and such stuff. It was also used to refer to how Banglapedia describes itself, including a direct quote. All other information was sourced from secondary sources. And, I haven't been able to find the Wikipedia mirror site. I'd be more than happy to remove/replace it. The one observation that seems to be bang on the point is the one on the lead. Getting to improve it. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a misunderstanding. Articles can be delisted from GA status at any time when it's evident that the article fails one of the chief GA criteria. As for the primary sources, see WP:PSTS. Primary sources can be used on rare occasions, but it is best to use have secondary sources throughout the article. Also, this was the Wikipedia mirror site I was referring to. If you source all the material with reliable third-party sources, I will gladly take another look at the article and re-evaluate it for GA status. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just because an article has been evaluated by an editor as GA status does not mean that it is really a "Good Article" by Wikipedia standards. The GA reviewer should have picked up on these issues when he first reviewed the article in July 2007. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it necessary to remove the cites from the "History of encyclopedias in Bangladesh" section? All that was reliable third party references even by the most stringent of measures. And, how come the book itself is not reference for its content. Do you need a third party reference to tell that, say, Ivan Hoe is a work of fiction? And, while it may need third party references, why was it necessary to remove the existing cites? The mirror cite is a later developement and should appropriately be removed. But, I am talking about the rest. A little explanation would be very helpful. Also, the GA reassessment procedure says something about a discussion. Was there any such thing involved in this delisting? Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banglapedia could be used in the article for that particular section since it's not material directly related to the subject. However, I removed it because it is best to avoid using Banglapedia.org as a source in the article at all. I included the editor's preface as a reference for the quote because you explicitly stated that the "editor's preface in Banglapedia says:". I removed all the "weeklyholiday.net" sources because they came as 404 Errors. Weeklyholiday.net still exists, but the material might either have been removed or relocated. I removed Vedams Books because it just copied the text from the book jacket of Banglapedia. I removed Bagchee because the material you sourced came from "From the publisher". The publisher is always going to have a COI and try to promote the book by sometimes exaggerating details. I consider this a primary source, as well. Find some third-party, neutral reliable source that can be used to source the said material. Also, discussion for GA delisting is only needed when a user is unsure. If you are sure it fails one of the GA criteria, then you can delist. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. But, apparently WP:PSTS says, "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." In that context, it may be alright to delist it, but a blanket removal may not be so alright. What do you think? Besides, I can't really see how the largest and most revered encyclopedia in Bangladesh fails to be a source for stuff that doesn't even speak about the encyclopedia itself. Is there a bit of systemic bias coming through, unintentionally of course. And, oh, does a delisting or a call for thrid-party sources necessarily mean that the primary sources "need to be removed"? Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The use of primary sources is strongly discouraged in most situations. It would be alright if you used the source as a reference once or twice. In this article, primary sources are used as sources in at least a dozen instances. As for the "History of encyclopedias in Bangladesh" section, I said Banglapedia could be used. However, it would look bad if you used Banglapedia.org as a source on an article about Banglapedia. And no, there is no systemic bias here. I just removed sources that should have been removed by the person who made the original GA evaluation. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources not used

[edit]

Here are two independent sources not yet used:

  • Zaman, Mustafa (2003-09-12). "The Banglapedia and its Making". Star Weekend Magazine. Vol 1 Num 122. Retrieved 2008-01-15. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Sanyat, Sattar (2003-19-12). "Reference Books of the Year". Star Weekend Magazine. Vol 1 Num 134. Retrieved 2008-01-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

I'll try to add some references in the article from here when I get more time. Hopefully we'll restore this article as GA fairly quickly. Arman (Talk) 08:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This would help greatly. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Another: a book! Good. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

Here are my thoughts on this GA candidate:

1(a): FAIL. The prose is awkward or confusing in a number of places. I've done a fair amount of copy-editing, but more needs to be done. Some examples: "Education Ministry funded about 74% of the cost." (Missing article); "UNESCO made a contribution under the participation programme through Bangladesh National Commission for UNESCO." (Unclear); "It was followed by Maharaja Kalikirshna Dev Bahadur's (1808-1974) Sankshipta Sadvidyabali (1833), a concise encyclopedia, Raja Radhakanta Deb's Sabdakalpadrum (1822-1858), a Sanskrit encyclopedic dictionary in eight parts, and Rajkrishna Ray (1849-1894) and Saratchandra Dev's (1858-unknown) joint work Bharatkosh, the first Bengali encyclopedia laid-out in alphabetical order (1880-1892) published in three volumes." (A sentence that needs to be broken up and clarified.); "Both of the these two works were celebrated in their own time, a status that Baus's work still enjoys." (Awkward.)

Comment If this was indicated befor the decision to fail it, that sentence and other issues could be addressed. Thanks for the proofreading, though. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added Adressed all that was mentioned. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel hard done by. Do please feel free to take the decision to Good Article review. I should say that I think that these edits that I made are more than simply proofreading. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1(b): FAIL. There are two lists, that don't really help the article, and contravene Manual of Style guidelines.

2(a): FAIL. There are lots of sources, but in fact at times this is overkill. There are many points at which it is not clear which source is doing what: there are two instances of "triple footnoting" in the lead, for instance, as well as a double footnote. Again, I've gone through and got rid of some of this. Then there some odd references: "Others, Catalog of Publications, Newsletter, Research Center for Islamic History, Art and Culture, Turkey," for instance. It's not clear what that source is meant to be (even after I follow the link) or how it supports the claim to which it is attached. Plus, and perhaps most importantly, I wonder if this encyclopedia was actually reviewed anywhere. All the sources seem to be news articles and/or press releases.

Comment The publication is cataloged by the Turkish source, and since there is no further commentary on the book, that should not be odd. When bits of information has to be pieced together into a comphresnive whole it can have triple, quadruple or more in-line citations. There is nothing against it anywhare on Wikipedia. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have thought that rather than a link to a catalogue of publications, what's required it to put this (and other significant publications cited in the article) in a "References" section. I should also note that it's not clear that the catalogue even features the book as you have it in the article: you have there Islami Bishwakosh (Encyclopedia of Islam, 1986) by Islamic Foundation Bangladesh; but there's no Islami Bishwakosh in the catalogue, and the closest thing seems to be the Encyclopaedia of Islam in Bengali (Dhaka, Bangladesh), whose publication date is given as April 1983. I repeat, that I find the multiple citations, without any clear indication as to the relation between reference and text, confusing. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One or two examples of multiple refs creating confusion would be very helpful. As a matter of fact the first-party cites cover the information comhrhensively, while many of the third-party refs are there to validate the first-party information, which apparently isn't acceptable even when the source is the only comprehensive reference work in Bangladesh. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2(b): FAIL. Not all of the sourcing is accurate. For instance, the references to the Encyclopaedia of Indian literature don't provide article titles, authors (if there are any), or page numbers. And presumably the articles "by" bd24news.com should be sourced directly to that website. Plus I'm not sure about the SDNP source, which seems simply to regurgitate Banglapedia press releases and/or to compile information gleaned from "UNB, Dhaka, The New nation." I'd say go to the original sources, rather than this compilation.

Comment The reference to the Indian source prvides something better than a page number. It provides a link, and that should be easier to verify. UNB is one of the major news agency in Bangladesh, and like most other news agencies in the world it supplies news to newspapers and broadcast media. They don't publish the news on their own. There is no problem with reliability or verifiability here, as far as I can see. The reference to BDNews24 can't possibly lead to their webpage, since they don't have a large enough archive. Not having a large archive doesn't contradict reliability or verifiability. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added When I went back I found that the Indian source had an author's name all along. On top of that New Age and New Nation are mainstream newspapers in Bangladesh and reliability and verifiability has no problem there. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But these are all references to references, rather than to the sources themselves. I think that's problematic: they're tertiary references. I suspect that this may also invoke copyvio issues, too. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's called syndication, not copyvio or "references to references", a fairly common practice around the world. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2(c): PASS. Not much sign of original research.

3(a): PASS. I'm no expert in this field, but it seems to me that the major aspects of the topic are addressed.

3(b): FAIL. There is lots of unnecessary (or at best marginally necessary) detail. There are far too many numbers and statistics. This could be addressed if you could find reviews of the book.

4: PASS. A marginal pass here, as the tendency is towards celebration of the very existence of this publication; but that seems to reflect the sources on the whole.

5: PASS. The article is stable.

6(a): FAIL. There is an image, but I don't understand it: it purports to be a self-created "digital recreation" of the cover. Is this the cover or not? How does it differ from the cover, if not? It would seem to make more sense to have an image of the cover itself!

This is the cover. I can't see how awkward English in the image summary fails the article. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added Image summary on "image description page" fixed. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't fail the article, but it does fail this element of the review. The documentation for the image is multiply misleading, and should have proper non-free image justification. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NB I have tried to fix this. But I am no expert on image licensing. Also note that there is no source documented. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Filled in the gaps in the image licensing template. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6(b): PASS. Yup, a cover image is appropriate.

So overall, I'm afraid I have to FAIL the article. It just seems to fail on too many counts. There's been much valiant effort here, and I particularly commend the attempt to place the topic within the context of the history of encyclopedias of Bangladesh. But right now, the article doesn't make it. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So overall, I think the review was not up to a sympathetic standard, and the fail verdict was plain mistaken at times. Besides, there was no review before the article was failed, and therefore there was no chance of meeting copy issues there. Anyways, these little things can be addressed quickly and the article can be resubmitted. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm sorry you think that the review was either unsympathetic or mistaken. I hope to have explained my thoughts, as well as shown the extent that I've tried to help out. Do please, again, feel free to have my review reassessed. If you wish, I can nominate the article there for you myself. Or if you choose rather to address the issues, and then resubmit, then that seems a decent plan, too. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But, I'd prefer to make this as watertight as possible before I do that. And, I'm working on it already. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

over 5,781 entries

[edit]

I just found myself here for a few minutes, and noticed the phrase "over 5,781" entries, which is in fact repeated. It seems rather odd because it's simultaneously vague and precise. I'd have thought you either put a specific figure (It has 5,782 entries or whatever the number is) or you gave a more general estimage (It has over 5,700 entries, or almost 6,000 entries...). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]

This is, on the whole, a good article. The one problem is this paragraph:

That's my correction of it, but I have to admit I'm not sure if I got it right: "Akkas, Abu Jar M. "Banglapedia edition every 2 years", The Weekly Holiday, 2004-05-23, pp. Front Page." is no longer available online, so I couldn't check against it, and I have to admit I ended up guessing at what was intended for " Before direct sales started in 3 January 2003, four thousand copies of the English version and all but 250 copies of the Bengali version were sold out of the initial 5,000 copies for each versions.[5] For an additional run of 10,000 prints people waited in queues outside the Asiatic Society office on the day of the release, and sales continued until 9:30 in the evening. A total of 4,500 sets of the Bangla version and 2,500 of the English version were sold.[6]" - please check I got that right.

Everything else is well-written, accurate, broad in scope, etc, etc. I'd suggest doing another peer review next, then trying this out as a featured article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, I wasn't sure where to put this on the WP:Good articles page. Does Wikipedia:Good_articles#Cultural_and_social_studies sound alright to everyone? It's a class of Social studies and society. If someone sees a better place, move it there =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wow! Wowowow!! I've fixed the copy and the lost link. Hope things are better now.Thanks also for the advise. Another peer review will be shortly forthcoming. FA? Well probably need a proper review of the compendium before that. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No bother! It's a quite good article on an interesting topic. I'd be happy to help out if you need me on this or other article - just pop a message on my talk page - though be warned, I am not an expert in Bangladesh. I'm willing to do research to try and rectify this, and can also copyedit, but, well, I'm not going to be competing with any actual experts any time soon. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now defunct?

[edit]

The Banglapedia site appears to be dead, for see here for an example. Can it still be used as a reference in Wikipedia? Pahari Sahib 08:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was an (unofficial) mirror, who recently was given a cease and desist letter from Asiatic Society. The official bpedia site is online at http://www.banglapedia.org/httpdocs/english/index.htm . Also, since this is a print encyclopedia, it can definitely be used for references. --Ragib (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Banglapedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Link rot had set in before url was archived, but was able to find a substitute.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Banglapedia&oldid=1251763092"