Talk:Sanskrit/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Maunus (talk · contribs) 19:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

I will carry out the review this article over the next week or so. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Layout and organization: The organization of sections is very odd, it does not follow the standard template for language articles, and the deviations from the standard template do not seem well thought out. I am not a stickler for consistency across articles, but the tempolate is made because it makes sense, so deviations ought to have some kind of rationale. The history section for example is sandwiched between two sections that are both basically about contemporary usage. Logic and the standard template would suggest having a section on history first and contemporary usage second - additionally a section on contemporary usage is also the last section in the article. I would suggest that all contemporary usage including "popular culture" should be consolidated and put either at the end of the article or immediately after the history section. The article also have many short sections, some consisting of a single short paragraph - particularly in the "contemporary usage" and "education" sections. These could benefit from being consolidated into larger sections. Additionally the "public education" section ends with a short section on European scholarship which seems out of place in this section focused on contemporary public education - and which would make a much better part of the History section (especially given the focus on colonial scholarship). Generally it is a major problem that the article focuses heavily on demonstrating that Sanskrit remains in use in contemporary by having two major sections describing this - but that in comparison it devotes almost no attention to the substance of the language: its phonology, its grammar, and its tradition of scholarship and the major works written in it. This imbalance alone is enough for me to consider that the article is not GA quality. The article simply cannot pass as a GA language article with such a minimal description of phonology and grammar.

Accuracy and Neutrality. The article does not come across as neutral, and it contains a number of inaccuracies and omissions. The excessive focus on describing contemporary usage relative to describing the history and substance of the language, and to dispel the idea that the language is "dead", gives the entire article a non-neutral slant. Additionally naccuracies and omissions occur precisely in the description of the history of the language. For example even though today only 15,000 people, a tiny portion of the Indian population, speak Sanskrit as a native language, the article states that "a number of sociolinguistic studies of spoken Sanskrit which strongly suggest that oral use of modern Sanskrit is limited, having ceased development sometime in the past". This borders on being dishonest, since this decline is a fact that is attested to by the decline in ritual importance within India over the 20th century, the decline in the number of speakers in the 19th an 20th centuries and the decline of publications of major texts in the same period. This fact is not negated by the other fact, that Sanskrit seems to be currently experiencing a revival as part of the hindu-nationalist political resurgence. The "decline" section spends three lines on the mainstream academic view, namely that Sanskrit became a ritual language tied only to hindu practice and is currently experiencing a revival, but spends the rest of the section on contesting this view. The section on Origin and development is OK, overall but it is confused in its claim that "Indo-Aryan migration theory" explains the common features of Sanskrit and other indo-european languages. It does not - it explains how speakers of Indo-European languages arrived in the Indian subcontinent. The commonalities are explained by historical linguistics and the comparative method which enables us to reconstruct the shared ancestor of Sanskrit, Indo-Aryan languages and all the other Indo-European languages - and this body of knowledge stands regardless of which migration theory one adopts. The inclusion of the critique of the relation between Indo-European philology, orientalism and colonialism is fine and warranted - but it omits the fact that many early orientalist scholars promoted the erroneous view that Sanskrit was the mother tongue of the Indo-European language family - and it also omits the fact that this view continues to be promoted today in the context of Hindu nationalism. This connection between the promotion of Sanskrit and Hindu nationalism is well established and often commented on in the literature - but entirely omitted from the article. The history section also does not include the question of influence by other languages on Vedic sanskrit - which is a major question in the litrature and which impinges greatly on our overall understanding of the language's history. The history section also does not at all describe the development from proto-Indo-Aryan to Vedic Sanskrit - which is extremely well understood. The "interaction with other languages" section omits the many Sanskrit origin words in English - which most English language users might find interesting.

Sources Sourcing is missing in many places, and there are entire unsourced subsections. The majority of sources are low quality online sources. Some solid academic sources are used, but they could be much better used - and considering how vast the literature on the topic is it does not adequately represent the academic literature. Major contemporary Sanskrit scholars such as Witzel and Doniger are ignored - their arguments and perhaps some counter arguments would enhance the information value of the article. The much too short section on Panini is based on two low quality sources instead of on the major body of academic literature about him, his work and its significance. I really don't like the choice of reference style, a harv-ref style or another style that sets apart book and article sources from online sources and news sources would be much better. I cannot demand this, but at least the citation style should be made internally consistent. Why is Maurer added to the further readings but not used? It would be a useful source. For GA, the main task is to source unsourced claims, to put academic sources to better use and to make sure the bibliography and referencing is consistent. For FA I think it will be necessary to choose a proper academic referencing style with a full bibliography, and to conduct a mcuh more thorough survey of the literature and integrate a much broader spectrum of academic sources.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Prose is frequently choppy, short one sentence paragraphs, little coherence between paragraphs, organization of sections is not well structured.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: The Lead could do better as a summary of the entire article.
Some list problems, with the list of universities for example.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Some accuracy problems pointed out about.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Many uncited statements, tagged. More high quality academic sources would be good.

C. No original research:
Not a problem.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Phonology and grammar sections are severely underdeveloped.

B. Focused:
Gives excessive weight to the contemporary usage of Sanskrit, especially relative to the history of the language and its grammar and phonology which is most likely to be of interest to the reader.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
The article comes across as biased towards emphasizing the current use of Sanskrit as a living language, and downplaying its religious and historical significance.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
#Overall:

Pass or Fail: A clear Fail. I would give time for the nominator to respond if they wouldlike to undertake the required work but I have just noticed that the nominator has been inactive for more than a month - hence they are unlikely to respond soon.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]