Talk:Bhagavad Gita/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cinosaur (talk · contribs) 06:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for choosing to review the article. You said here that the article had problems with "content, structure, style, and even punctuation". I and Titodutta will try to take care of any problems you list here. Needless to say, you are free to make corrections to the article too. Thanks again. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The structure of the article is really poor. It is full of "choppy" short paragraphs. One option could be to merge paragraphs that are similarly themed or that have some connection through the content. As an example, "background" and "characters" can be coalesced together. The upper half of the article gives a very "listy" feeling rather than "prosy". Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I have restructured the content into longer paragraphs and merged the redundant subsections. I have left the characters subsection as it is. It is not really needed, given all the characters are otherwise introduced in the article. However, I feel it might help a reader new to the Gita. Of course, it can be removed if it still makes the article look list-like. Thank you for the suggestions. Regards. --CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I have not read the article thoroughly. However, after your restructuring, the look is much better, more prose-like. IMO it is ok to have the short "characters" subsection, as it introduces the principal characters to an uninitiated reader.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I was suffering from an editor's block, if there is such a thing. I just couldn't see anything wrong with the article. Your comments were very helpful and pointed me in the right direction. I will be grateful for any more suggestions you might have. Regards. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments I am not doing a formal GA review. I will make comments as I go through the article, and those will mostly concern prose issues. Also, I may end abruptly.

"The Bhagavad Gita is traditionally ascribed to Vyasa. However, in actuality, the scripture is a composite work of many authors over a period of time". You can tell why it is ascribes to Vyasa (since Vyasa is thought as the writer of Mahabharata, and Gita is a part thereof). My major concern is the second sentence. It says, "however, in actuality". That means, we are absolutely sure that it is a composite work. Are we absolutely sure? I think, some alternate wording might be better, such as "Historians/Noted Gita scholars such as XYZ opibne that Gita is a composite work".

 Done, I removed the sentence. It was original research and a misrepresentation of the sources. The first reference just said that Mahabharata was a composite work, whereas the second one was silent on the issue. Jeaneane Fowler, a separate reference, says that the authorship is still unknown. So I removed the sentence. It was probably POV peddling by a recently blocked sockpuppet. Can't believe I totally missed it. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"Professor Jeaneane Fowler writes that while scholars accept dates of fifth century BCE with a later demarcation of second century BCE,...". What do you exactly mean? That scholars accept composition period between 5th and 2nd century BCE? Also, a more descriptive word(s) rather than "Professor" would be better. Indologist? Historian? Expert on Hinduism? Similarly, for Kashi Nath Upadhyaya, who is he? Even Adi Shankara may benefit from some descriptive words.

 Done

"As a Smṛiti, the Gita has no independent authority from the Upanishads (Śruti)." What does this mean? Why would one expect Gita's independent authority from Upanishads? I mean, Smriti is dependent somehow on Sruti? It is unclear for a reader who does not have any idea what these things are. Also, describe briefly what are Upanishads. Similarly, a small description of Advaita Vedanta may be helpful (perhaps within parenthesis).

 Done

"Sanjaya, counsellor of the Kuru king Dhritarashtra, after returning from the battlefield..". Start with "In the epic Mahabharata, Sanjaya, counsellor of..."

 Done

"The Gita begins before the start of the climactic Kurukshetra war, with the Pandava prince Arjuna becoming filled with doubt on the battlefield" See wikipedia:PLUSING. This is a bad use of "with .. -ing". Can change to "The Gita...war where Panadva prince..."

 Done

Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional comment One thing is not clear yet. What do you exactly mean by Gita has no "independent authority". Does it mean that Gita, as a standalone text, is not enough? Or, Gita can not be interpreted on the basis of itself and needs help from Upansihad? Or something else? (this sentence may be very clear to you as you are editing this article whole-heartedly; but for an uninitiated reader, it is difficult to understand).--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Smritis are authored and therefore do not have the same level of scriptural/religious authority as the Sruti texts. Basically, one can reject the word of a Smriti as the word of man, but instructions of the Sruti, the revealed word (not necessarily the word of God), have to be accepted. So the scriptural authority of the Gita, for Hindus, is ambiguous because its position as Sruti is not universally accepted. The authority of the Smritis is also dependent on the Sruti in the sense that if something in a Smriti is found to be contradictory to a Sruti text it is rejected. Therefore, smriti of the buddha for instance, is not accepted by the Vedantins etc. I have tried to clarify this in the article since your last comment on it. I don't know if anything more can be added there without making the section completely lose focus. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment continued.

• The Sanskrit concepts, when the first appear, needs their meaning when the first appear (dharma, swadharma, varna, Atman and so on). You can give short meanings of these words within parenthesis.

 Done, I have left out dharma as calling it duty might confuse readers, given that it is explored in great detail in a section. Likewise, varna dharma is actually varnashrama dharma which is hard to translate. (class-age group dharma? Or the fourfold classification of human life by class and age group?)

• Non-English words needs to be italicised consistently. However, proper nouns, such as Mahabharata, Gita do not need to be italicised.  Done
• Remove hyphen in Swa-dharma (used only once).  Done
• "... is often interpreted as the varna dharma or the duty of a warrior". Varna Dharma does not mean duty of warrior. For Arjun, it means duties of a warrior, as he belongs to warrior varna. This should be clarified I think.  Done
• " However, both Aurobindo and Radhakrishnan see...". Who are they? give short intro (Hinduism expert/ Gita scholar etc).  Done
• "A synthesis of knowledge, devotion, and desireless action is given both, as a prescription to Arjuna's despondence, as well as, the way to moksha". The sentence structure is probably not correct, could not understand the meaning.

 Done, I have modified the structure slightly. Tell me if the meaning is clear now.

• "Since it is impossible for living beings to avoid action all together, Bhagavad Gita offers a practical approach to liberation in the form of Karma yoga" So, does Gita (or any commentator) mentions "Since it is impossible for living beings to avoid action all together", or is this just a comment (tending to be original research)?

 Done, This is paraphrased from Jeaneane Fowler's comment: "Karma-yoga takes the common-sense view that it is impossible to avoid acting in some way or another, simply because we are living beings." It is definitely not original research, but if you want it to be phrased better or in a more formal language it can be done. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Associate Professor of Theology Catherine Cornille writes...". Associate Professor where? Which university? Rather, you can tell "Theologist Catherine..."  Done
• "It has been highly praised not only by...". Do not start a paragraph with a pronoun.  Done
• In the Influence section, do we have any more instances of general influence rather than influence on notable individuals?--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The general influence is in the Independence movement and Hindu revivalism and Neo-Hindu movements sections. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Message to reviewers

I can not understand what is happening here?! Primary contributor reviewer has already thought of quick-failing (or failing) the article, then we can not find him (he has to give final verdict). And another editor is reviewing here! --Tito Dutta ✉ 02:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Correction --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well any comments/suggestions here will not go waste. If this article is failed then they'll be saved for future reference and if the review is voided then they will be copied into the new review. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Who is the primary contributor? I thought Correct Knowledge is! And I am not reviewing the article, as I have already mentioned above. These are just some comments on the prose.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok, you meant primary reviewer! That's ok, primary reviewer can review the article at his/her own leisure. I am not concerned with the outcome here, we are just doing the work :) --Dwaipayan (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

(a) A quick check showed that not all the statements in the article are verifiable by the sources cited. For instance, the statement "Verses of this chapter are thought by scholars to be panentheistic" is attibuted to Southgate (Southgate, Christopher (2005), God, Humanity and the Cosmos - 2nd edition: A Companion to the Science-Religion Debate, Continuum International Publishing Group), but there are no "scholars" cited in the source to substantiate the claim that the verses are panentheistic except Southgate himself, who is a theologian but not a scholar on Hinduism.

 Done This was a case of WP:WEASEL rather than fake referencing, but changed it anyway.

(b) The article relies heavily on questionable sources, including those published online: [1], [2], [3], [4] as well as non-academic works by members of various Hindu religious organizations such as Chinmaya Mission, Ramakrishna Mission, The Divine Life Society, ISKCON, Advaita Ashrama, Sri Aurobindo Asram, The Blue Mountain Center of Meditation etc., and non-academic publishers like Heart of Albion Press and Vedanta Press, and even a translation by a musician Winthrop Sargeant. For instance, the entire Overview of chapters consists of close paraphrasing of such online materials of questionable credibility as WP:RS. Obviously such works cannot be used as reliable sources on this topic.

To sum up, over 60 of the 125 references in the article are to doubtful sources. This had to be addressed before the article was nominated for GA, preferably at the peer review stage. I'll reserve my further comments on this GAN until I get a reply from the nominator, but from what it appears, the article fails on this single count alone. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS suggests:

Policy Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.

I concede Chinmaya Mission, Ramakrishna Mission, The Divine Life Society, ISKCON, Advaita Ashrama, Sri Aurobindo Asram, The Blue Mountain Center of Meditation are not academic sources. But let us look at whether the authors these houses publish are reliable or not. Jeaneane Fowler, former Head of Philosophy and Religious Studies at the University of Wales College, a reliable author by any count is cited only once (by Abelard, Peter. Historia Calamitatum). Compare this to the fact that Easwaran's The Bhagavad Gita alone is cited 76 times. Again, as per WP:USEBYOTHERS:

Policy The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability...

Regardless of the fact that The Blue Mountain Center of Meditation publishes Easwaran's work he is still the source for Gita in academic circles. Likewise, Aurobindo's Essays on the Gita (published by Sri Aurobindo Asram) is cited 141 times (in two languages), Winthrop Sargeant is cited 29 times, Chinmayananda, Vivekananda etc. etc. are all notable, well cited sources. I was actually surprised you brought Sargeant up given that his book is also published by SUNY, that makes him reliable on both counts (yes he is a musician also). Websites of ISKCON, Bhagavad Gita Trust (Bhagavad-gita.org) etc. are used primarily for quotes and overview of chapters. We have verified the translations to the quotes used in article by multiple sources (gita press and a few other non-english ones). However, we refrained from citing all the sources sources per WP:CITEKILL. As for the overview of chapters, Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source may not be needed suggests that "If the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details". Therefore, the 18 or so sources of Bhagavad-Gita.org are really redundant. Nevertheless we still think its better to have them there.

Please also note the context in which the sources have been used. The author is usually mentioned before their sources are used (e.g. " Eknath Easwaran writes that..."). Besides, so many comments of so many scholars are mentioned only for WP:NPOV's sake, to accommodate as many viewpoints on a theme as possible. I think I have given ample reasons why the "60 of the 125 references" are reliable. You are welcome to examine each of them in detail. But as I had said earlier, you cannot quickfail this article. Therefore, only take it up for review if you have enough time and energy. Regards. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 00:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

PS You might want to take back your comment on close paraphrasing. I almost missed it on first read. Only two phrases in the whole section on overview of chapters "extols the glory of devotion to God" and "universe is pervaded, created, maintained, and annihilated by His" are similar to their sources. These alone do not qualify as close paraphrasing. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 22:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced about.com and sacredtext.com references completely and BG.org in composition and significance section with five better sources, thanks for pointing this out. I have also reworded the two phrases mentioned in my previous comment. Regards. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 23:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. 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):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Status

What's the status of this review? More than one month with no activity--Tito Dutta ✉ 13:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

reviewer hasn't edited since August 19th. Since the writer has responded to concerns, I would say that a new reviewer should finish this up. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I am a primary contributor here in this article, I can not review it. The nominator is under a 6 months topic ban (I don't know it'll affect in this article). If he can not edit in article, I'll try to respond to new reviewer's concerns. --Tito Dutta ✉ 03:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the scope of the nominator's 6 month topic ban include this article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologize to the nominator and the article contributors for having been unable to complete the review (or edit Wikipedia in general for a few months) due to extenuating circumstances in RL. Even though the article has been failed anyway, given its importance I want to see it become FA one day. All the best. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)