Wikipedia:Peer review/Mahatma Gandhi/archive1

Mahatma Gandhi

ma ha karin

- This peer review has been opened to help repair a lot of the problems that are threatening this article's quality and FA status. I ask for your help to solve some very urgent and serious problems in this article. We hope to repair all the problems and find ways to protect the article's quality. Rama's Arrow 16:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Problems (with respect to FA standards)

1. The size is 68kb presently. It should be below 50kb in ideal circumstances, but as much as possible it should be reduced.
2. The "Contents" box is too long.
3. The lead is not good enough.
4. The "Criticisms" passage is not comprehensive or NPOV (why should there be "Pakistani", "Jewish", "Hindu" sections?)
5. Copyedits - a lot of misplaced links, spelling and grammar errors abound. The prose style is often adversely affected.
6. Inline citations - best way to protect integrity of data
7. Gandhi's Principles - this section is repetitive and too long. It is contributing to the size problem. Plus, the quotes need to be cited.
8. Commemorations - why is there a need to list every statue of Gandhi that exists in each foreign country?
9. Overediting - too many different people come in and add all kinds of info (for example...ahem....me). Over a period of weeks or months, the quality of article steadily erodes, as it has by now.
10. Fancruft - not only from Gandhians, but supporters of Subhas Bose! This needs to be extensively addressed.

I've listed the faults I see in this article. I hope this discussion will help resolve all venues of problems. Rama's Arrow 16:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of the problems have been addressed Rama's Arrow 16:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I know this has been discussed before, but I think we should take this opportunity to address the question again if this article's rightful title should be Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and not Mahatma Gandhi. I assert that it is our obligation to remain encylopedic at all times, and given that there are extensive re-directs, the article should be moved to MKG. P.S. - for Gandhi himself - he would not like being titled Mahatma Gandhi everywhere. Rama's Arrow 16:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• I think "Gandhi's principles" sections should be renamed "Gandhism" and should be condensed to a list, w/ each item corresponding to a current subheading. There could be a short (one sentence) description for each principle, w/ the details left to the subarticle.
• I agree w/ all the above points raised (that's some great self-critique).
• IPA pronunciation guide (as well as spoken guide, like the one India has) for his full name would be useful.
• Daughter articles should be cleaned up, because they are integrally tied to this article. I've had objections to FACs I've nominated due to poor condition of subarticles. Could be a problem at potential FARC as well.
• Lead section should be compressed somewhat (maybe two-thirds its current size. It needs to have a more chronological/narrative flow/thread and do a better job of descibing his actual life.
• Rm all WP:PEACOCK ("one of the most prominent" — show us w/ specifics attesting to his prominence, and let readers make up their own minds) and WP:WEASEL ("at a time when many thought that such activities were not 'respectable' for women" — who are these "many"?). I've been (and still am) myself often guilty of violating this advice, and its not as major an issue as the above points.

Good luck, and let me know if anyone pulls the WP:FARC trigger on this poor, defenseless, non-violent man. ;-P Saravask 04:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• 1. A summary needed. 2. The number of headings needs to be kept to a bare minimum. 3. I have a pix of the Sabarmati Ashram, I'll be adding it later. Plz remind me if I forget. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Great work

It has been some great work in pruning the material, hats-off. The contents box can be reduced in size once "Gandhi's Principles" section is pruned as per Saravask's comments. I feel that it makes sense to divide criticism section into sub-sections as to understand who or why they criticised him; however, the titles of the sub-sections need to be modified. Same is the case with other titles like "1930's and conflict with Bose." From a historical basis, such a conflict was less severe or impactful when compared to the one with Ambedkar. A better idea for re-organising the material would be a complete re-write where apart from the political life, his struggles against untouchability and efforts towards sanitation etc. need wider mention - however, I doubt if this can be done easily. Gandhi's legacy in terms of his family can be probably attempted through Category:Mahatma Gandhi. Overediting - most of it is actually vandalism and POV which is typically reverted fast. Anyways, I've semi-protected it and would review the progress in another 3-4 days. Commemorations as well as artictic depictions - they are notable and verifiable; however, the potential for farming these off to a separate article is very high. Some pruning can be done from references section as well - e.g. "The kingdom of God is within you" does not contain any material about Gandhi and hence, cannot be a reference etc. I would be able to have a go at some of these only after a week or so, if no one else gets to them before I do. --Gurubrahma 17:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comments. The article looks pretty good. One way of solving the Table of Contents problem would be making the subheadings in Ganhdi's principles bolded instead of subsections. Though the current TOC is not truly unwieldy. I don't know enough in detail about the subject to comment on it's coverage and neutrality, but it seems pretty good. One note specifically is the Penn and Teller criticisms themselves may be common criticisms, but I have a hard time seeing Penn and Teller as a reliable enough source to warrant mentioning them as the source at all. If more important people have leveled those criticisms they would be better to cite to. The only thing that could support mentioning P&T is if there is objective evidence of their views being important or influential, such as them being commonly cited, etc. So the criticism section needs to stay, it just may need more research. On a similar vein the most common criticism I have heard of him as a man is over his relationship with his son. That would also take some research to justify, but I believe that would come out as one of the most important criticisms of him. The length is likely to gain negative comments at FAC, but you already knew that. I can't offer specific advice except looking at the longest sections and focusing on them for summarizing and moving out detail to daughter articles. It's just a tough process of prioritizing what is the most important information and leaving everything else to subarticles. - Taxman ^Talk 17:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply on some points

1. I don't feel that "Gandhi's principles" should be renamed "Gandhism" becoz even though there is a good article called Gandhism, its not an officially defined term - besides, Brahmacharya, Ahimsa, fasting, etc. are not Gandhi's original thinking, as he has admitted himself.
2. Criticism in sub-divisions is ok, but I objected to the branding like "Pakistani", "Jewish", etc.
3. "The Indian Independence Movement" was a lot about rmv untouchability, uplifting women - extensive social reform. Without such work, Gandhi's campaigns in Champaran, Kheda, Non cooperation would not have been successful. There is no need to separate politics from social reforms.
4. I don't see the need to list all those statues of Gandhi, especially since this contributes to size problem.

Rama's Arrow 23:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Since "Gandhism" is not an officially defined term and Gandhi himself said that truth and non-violence are as old as the hills, it would be sensible to move "Gandhism" to "Principles of Mahatma Gandhi" and explain in the lead of that article about the similarity and difference in the two terms. While no one denies that social and political tasks went hand-in-hand, a separation makes sense from the point of view of the reader. This is how even his autobiography is organised, albeit, it covers events before 1924. While you don'tsee the need to list statues everywhere, others do so - I'd be mighty impressed to see the statue of a foreigner in India; so would be the case of a foreigner who sees Gandhi's statue in his country. If size and flow are the issues, forks are in order to create sub-articles. --Gurubrahma 06:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually "Gandhism" should stay "Gandhism" - the term has been used many times in many mediums (all I'm saying there is no dictionary definition). The article discusses the generation/movement that arose from Gandhi's values and how Gandhi got to them. Otherwise the article would be called for deletion since there are independent articles on brahmachary, ahimsa, etc. already. But that's another issue.

Gandhi's autobiography is organized in chronological order, not Volume 1:Social work, Volume II:freedom struggle. I think the reader must be asked to understand that the freedom struggle involved a joint fight against British tyranny and social evils - it is revisionist history to suggest that they were separate.

Others might favor the listing of Gandhi statues, but the job of informing of Gandhi's worldwide fame can be done in simpler sentences with a few examples. When one goes listing Gandhi statues/busts in 10 cities, Canadian provinces, colleges, it gets inefficient. After all, one wouldn't list the cities possessing a "M.G. Road", would one? While its ok, its not good writing (Britannica doesn't do this, nor do most others) nor does it help achieving FA criteria. Rama's Arrow 06:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

"Across the world" reform

Instead of the current version, I propose this to address the problem of length in this section:

Across the world In the United Kingdom, there are several prominent statues of Gandhi, most notably in Tavistock Square, London (near University College London), where he studied law. January 30 is commemorated in the United Kingdom as National Gandhi Rememberance Day. In the United States, there are statues of Gandhi outside the Ferry Building in San Francisco, Union Square Park in New York City, the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site in Atlanta and near the Indian Embassy in the Dupont Circle neighbourhood of Washington, DC. The city of Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, where Gandhi was ejected in 1893 from a first-class train, now hosts a commemorative statue. The Government of India donated a statue to the city of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, to signify their support for the future Canadian Museum for Human Rights. There are wax statues of Gandhi at the Madame Tussaud's wax museums in New York and London, and other cities around the world, including Moscow, Paris, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Lisbon, Canberra, Santiago de Chile and San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago.

Cleaning out some examples, this para still conveys the respect Gandhi is given across the world, while cutting size. Rama's Arrow 06:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Fresh tirade of edits

Hi - a user:Saiswa had recently undertaken a lot of edits containing POV and drastic in nature, including the creation of a sub-article Criticism of Gandhi w/o discussion. I had to revert those changes to protect our task here, but obviously we're open to his/her opinions and contributions. The Criticism "sub-article" might not be a bad idea, but he/she should have discussed it here obviously. Rama's Arrow 03:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

He has also created Gandhi's comments on various religions. Rama's Arrow 03:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Dialogue on structure and forks

There are two problem forks - Criticism of Gandhi, Gandhi's comments on various religions. These are entirely cut/paste jobs, and should not have been created before a proper discussion.

I have set up AFD for these particular ones, but forks are needed in some places to reduce the length of the article. Rama's Arrow 21:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Why re-invent the wheel?

I strongly feel that we should first compare the FA version and the latest version to see the changes in terms of additions, deletions, modifications not just to the content but also the size so that we do not end up re-inventing the wheel. --Gurubrahma 14:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem or difficulty in consulting the former edition for tips. But the addage "Reinvent the wheel" is mis-applied: the FA criteria is always there and standard for each article on Wikipedia - no matter what the change is, you can always look at the FA criteria to work things out.

The previous Gandhi FA version had less content, undiversified formatting, no citations, problem links and a simplistic approach to writing of Gandhi's life. The writing and content is far more complex in this version, and when you talk of comparing writing/content, its a pretty hard job. Also, I don't think the FA process by which that version became an FA was as rigorous as the process is now. Rama's Arrow 16:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What I mean by complexity of writing and content, is that this article is addressing multiple interpretations of Gandhi's life, more sophisticated facts and quotes, and attempting to explore many parts of Gandhi's life at the level of a research study, but obviously limited to an encyclopedia. Its not competent enough to work with "leader of peace, political leader of freedom struggle." Rama's Arrow 16:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)