Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Works of Rambhadracharya/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 14:57, 18 August 2012 [1].

Works of Rambhadracharya[edit]

Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 07:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that this list meets the FL criteria. Thanks, :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 07:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support assumption of comprehensiveness. Comments were resolved last FLC. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bencherlite

I have difficulty in accepting that this opening sentence is an example of WP's finest prose: "Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami Rambhadracharya (better known as Jagadguru Rambhadracharya or Swami Rambhadracharya) is a Hindu religious leader, educationist, Sanskrit scholar, polyglot, poet, author, commentator, philosopher, composer, singer, playwright and Katha artist based in Chitrakoot, India." It's far too long, and attempts to cram in far too much detail. Furthermore, do we really need wikilinks to "playwright" and "India", for example? Done
Similarly the second sentence: "His works consist of poems, plays, dissertations, commentaries, discourses, and musical compositions of himself." (What are "musical compositions of himself"???) Done
Do we really need "To sort this table by year, title, or any other column, click on the icon next to the column title" once, let alone every time? Removed
In the sub-headings, some of the translations use capital letters (e.g. "Mahākāvyas (Epic poems)") and others don't (e.g. "Khaṇḍakāvyas (minor poems)") - is there a reason for the differences? This is because "minor" and "lyrical" are adjectives, and therefore have not used capital letters. Other words like "Play" and "Epic" are nouns, and have used capital letters.
Do we need so many single-item tables? Can't they be combined into something more useful, such as an "other works" section? If they are to be retained, why are one-item tables sortable? Partially done I have made one column tables unsortable.
Do we really need the publisher? There are two bibliography FLs which uses tables, S. E. Hinton bibliography and Edgar Allan Poe bibliography, and both have a publisher column, so having it here would be better.
Sentence fragments such as "Lyrical poem." should not have a full stop / period at the end; only full sentences end with a "." . Fixed
I'm wondering if we need a box, symbol and colour to tell us that something is undated when you could just put "undated" in the year column. I think having it would do no harm, however Id you wish, I can remove it.
Similarly with "unpublished" - wouldn't adding the word "unpublished" to the notes do? Same as above
I think it's overkill to have {{Jagadguru Rambhadracharya}} and {{Rambhadracharya sidebar}} in the same article. Done by Redtigerxyz
In general, this list gives the impression of being written by someone who's very knowledgeable about the subject matter but who perhaps has not given enough consideration to the fact that many readers of this list (perhaps particularly at FLC!) will not have the first clue about the writer or the topics about which he writes. Some more explanation of concepts, people, genres, etc would not go amiss in my humble opinion. Done I have added Template:See also where articles about genres are present.

That's all for now. Bencherlite ^Talk 19:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 17:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GoP _T ^C _N 08:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments

- The portal box is in the wrong position; should be below the navbox. Not done WP:ALSO says that they should be kept under the "See also" section.
  - It is a guideline and not a policy. Furthermore it does not say it must be like that, and it does look awful in that section. Consider making it like here.
    - Done. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't the article be named "Works by Rambhadracharya"? Not done WikiProject Bibliographies#Naming recommends "of"
  - My English skills are not brilliant but it does not make sense to me. I always thought it is always a product by somebody, not of.
- I find the space between the title and the lead a bit distracting. Could you fix it somehow?--GoP_T^C_N 17:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Not done Again sorry but I can't find any solution to this. :([reply]
  - Yes, that was already done by Bencherlite.--GoP_T^C_N 07:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ooops! Sorry, I didn't noticed that. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 06:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great list! :)--GoP _T ^C _N 08:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: No copyright related problems found. All covers depicted in File:Ramabhadracharya Works - Collage.jpg appear to be free and none of the writings on the backs of the books depicted in File:JagadguruRamabhadracharyaWorks.jpg appear to be eligible for copyright. By the way, you may want to ask Bencherlite to revisit. Good raise 19:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. No concerns. Great work! TBran dl ey 19:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to support or oppose this, but I doubt that any list that contains the word "etc" in the second sentence of the lead (as in "His works consist of poems, commentaries, musical compositions of his works, etc.") can justifiably claim to be an example of Wikipedia's finest work. I'm not going to support because I think that the suggestions I made about lack of information about concepts/people/genres, too many small sections and so on, would have been worth acting upon by doing more than adding the odd wikilink. He has also been given many other literary honors and titles, such as Mahakavi and Kavikularatna", for example, is meaningless to me, because I have no idea what the awards (or titles? or honours? or something else?) mean or who awards them, nor why I should be impressed. I'm not going to oppose because I would appear to be in the minority and I don't want to throw spanners in the works unnecessarily. But please improve the prose in the lead, regardless. One other point in passing: is "He composed Śrīrāghavakṛpābhāṣyam on Narada Bhakti Sutra in 1991" in the section "Sanskrit commentaries on the Prasthānatrayī" a reference to Rambhadracharya, or the last person to be mentioned before the word "he", i.e. the former prime minister? Bencherlite ^Talk 22:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. :) I have fixed your concern, however your comment about "lack of information" is something I really don't know how to work upon. The main point is that I don't want to list to go off-topic, and the second is that such problems occur in many Indian mythology articles (the same problem was faced by a copy-editor when he copy-edited the main article Rambhadracharya). As of merging the small sections, I have amended your suggestion. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Bencherlite. The article is focused on merely listing works rather than being an encyclopedic article about a set of works. More context is required to make this article accessible to readers unfamiliar with the subject matter. Thus, I'm opposing. Good raise 20:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is focused as such because its a list. Whenever it is possible separate articles have been created. Indian literature is very different from English or Romanic languages literature, and I really can't help with that. In case this is really an issue, consider this FLC as withdrawn. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 09:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.