Talk:Rajneesh/GA1


 * From Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of April 12, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: The writing is interesting and engaging. It could use a copyedit and minor rewrite. The lede is a little long, but it serves the purpose of summarizing and introducing well. Also see concerns about presentation below.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: There is a wide variety of sources used, most of which are of excellent reliability. However, the formatting of the references could use some attention. Given the predominant footnote format, I would recommend a References, Notes, Further Reading structure. Respectively, they are a list of references cited (with full information, such as ISBN), the footnotes, and further references not cited. The references and further reading sections should be arranged alphabetically by last name. This will help clarify the referencing to the reader and fellow editors. In general, the article is very well referenced, just lacking in the organization/presentation of the citations. See concerns about presentation below as well.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: This article seems to cover a lot of bases, presenting many viewpoints and aspects of Osho's life.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: All the bases seem to covered, generally speaking. However, I am concerned by some of the language used and the construction of some statements. Notably, I must express some discomfort with statements using multiple sources to support multiple segments. (For example, under "Teachings": 'His teachings were not presented in a dry, academic setting,[91] but were interspersed with jokes[92] and delivered with an oratory that many found spellbinding.[93]') I am sure each source gives its particular view a certain context. If the views overlap, it should be fine to cite the entire sentence to multiple sources. If they do not, the views should be presented in distinct statements. See closing comments for related concerns.
 * 5. Article stability? Pass
 * 6. Images?: This article seems to make good use of images.

There also seem to be some OR concerns, particularly in those "compound" sentences mentioned under NPOV. For example, one relies on the title of a book for a broad claim (Osho) and then cites another source as though it clearly is a response to the previous claim. The second source cited does not make such broad interpretations, but instead talks about issues with filming Osho's ashram and about his conflicts and support with individual politicians. It does however mention (on pg 64) that he insisted he was generally against politicians, and therefore could support the first section without extrapolating from a book title. However, in terms the closing portion, it is an inaccurate summary of the complex discourse on his relationship with politicians present in the source. The article needs to be reviewed for this sort of less-than-desirable referencing, and when appropriate rewritten according to the sources.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. Vassyana (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reviewing the article and for your assessment, which I find fair and accurate. Armed with your insights, I'll get to work on the points you raised. :-) Jayen 466 00:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thank you for taking my feedback in such good faith and cheer! Vassyana (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As an example, I tagged a citation needing clarification/verification and expanded/rewrote a portion based on a source I could access. The article is a bit long and I understand that expanding per sources could easily make the article too long. Don't worry too much about that. You can always split off overgrown pieces into their own articles and just use a referenced summary with a main or seealso link. I don't think anyone would be too concerned with new articles coming fully referenced, if needing a bit of work as an article themselves. :) Vassyana (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)