Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bahinabai/1

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Bahinabai

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: No action. Nomination withdrawn after helpful feedback was received. Please add further suggestions on the article talk page. Geometry guy 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed the article here because I could not understand why was Bahinabai failed. The reviewer said "This article is well-written, well-organized and adequately sourced. However, I'm failing it because I don't think it's comprehensive enough." So I suppose, the article satisfies criteria 1 and 2, is agreed by the reviewer. Criterion 3 says "it addresses the main aspects of the topic."

I have covered the whole life summary and literary works. Then the reviewer writes "The biography section is thorough, but ... I want to know more about her legacy and impact on Hinduism and more specifically the role of women in it. It's been almost four centuries since she her life ... have other religious figures drawn inspiration from her, commented on her or whatever. Have feminists? I mean, when I read stories like this I have to wonder about these questions. The article can and should deal with them if it is to be considered a GA." I just could not understand: what Valentine day protests by some Hindu groups have to do with Bahinabai? I have covered her philosophy, that is her legacy. Anyway if one reads the article, one will find "She (Bahinabai) regrets her female birth". Not a role model for feminists, is she? But I just wrote is considered WP:OR in wikipedia articles. Since the references i checked do not discuss feminist views i did not discuss that. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As our conversations on each other's talk pages should make clear, I just would like to see some larger context in addition to a thorough retelling of her life. If others here feel the article is sufficiently broad as is, then I have no objections to those reviewers deciding for themselves it meets the criteria. But I don't feel that it does. Daniel Case (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and question. If Bahinabai's life and works produced a legacy or influence then the article should cover them, perhaps in a "Legacy" section. If not, then the article can forgo such a section. Do reliable sources address her legacy? Majoreditor (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bahinabai is honoured as a Varkari saint and her verses still sung by the Varkaris, like verses of other Varkari saints. Since her works are her philosophy, her legacy. I did not form a different section. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure that there is enough material from high-quality sources to justify adding a legacy section. Unless someone shows otherwise I'm inclined to say that the article is broad enough in its coverage. However, the prose is spotty. The article needs copyediting: see, for example, how the prose drifts between the present and past verb tenses. Majoreditor (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google books finds many books about hinduism and feminism that discuss her legacy. A broad article must include this.
"Bahinabai reports a spiritual encounter with the calf." "Bahinabai also comments on the duties of a married woman." "Bahinabai sometimes curses his fate of being born as a woman" Here present tense is used to reflect what she says in her poems. Although present --> past, will be a simple thing to accomplish. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • PASS. It seems to me that reviewers tend to miss the footnote attached to the "broad coverage" criterion of the GA review. Here it is: "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and broad overviews of large topics." If you can supply a "Legacy" or equilvalent section, so much the better. But as the article now stands, I vote PASS for GA status. I'm hoping a PASS will encourage you take up the reviewer's suggestion! A "Legacy" section is a great way to wrap up an article. Good luck! ItsLassieTime (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the positive response. I have explained my position on the Legacy issue. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fail. The orgiginal reviewer may not have given the best review, but i agree about failing broadness in coverage. The article badly needs sections on her influence, and importance of her works. How does one become a Hindu saint? She just proclaimed herself one? Presumable someone thought her work was extremely important, and it touches on controvertial issues (women's place in Indian society), so it is hard to believe sources do not exist discussing this. Sources on feminism in india don't say anything about a saint married to an abusive husband, an extremely controversial topic in india today? Check google books, there are whole books on this.YobMod 12:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"How does one become a Hindu saint?" I have replied to this before. There is no set rules like the Vatican has. Bahinabai never proclaimed herself to a saint. "Some people considered her behaviour as a sign of madness, while others considered it a mark of sainthood.[8]" This way he was considered a saint in her lifetime. As I wrote before : "one will find "She (Bahinabai) regrets her female birth". Not a role model for feminists, is she?", although a feminist perspective "Bahinabai sometimes curses his fate of being born as a woman, which author Tharu interprets as "her scepticism, her rebelliousness and her insistent refusal to abandon her aspiration for the truth"" is in place. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So where is this information about her not being a feminist role model in the article? Dozens, if not hundreds (thousands?) of people have written about her, so an article should cover this discussion, even if only aiming for broad. Choosing an imprtant subject for GA means they are more difficult to achieve, but that is simply how it is. Any 2-bit pop singer would have a section on reception and controversies - this subject has whole books about her, so needs even more. Try reading the Thomas Aquinas or Mother Teresa GAs for comparison - a good article on a saint should be heading in that direction, but here we don't even get a paragraph on legacy. Why should a reader be short-changed on non-christian subjects?
Also, sentences like: "However, he could do so as he suffered a burning limbs sensation lasting a month, on the day of departure. Finally, he repented and was conceived of Bahinabai's faith in her devotion to God." make me think this needs thorough copy edit by a native speaker of English.YobMod 20:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: Thanks every one for the constructive comments. I think this discusion gave me a fair idea of what needs to be done. Certainly, A better idea than the first GA review. Summary of things to do (If anyone finds more, please add to the list):

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Bahinabai/1&oldid=1089815607"