Banglapedia has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please refer to Talk:Sirajul Islam#Merge. -- Ragib 08:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Passages like this are neither referenced nor NPOV:
It is easy to navigate, laid out in alphabetical order and is prefaced by an extremely detailed essay by the Chief Editor. However, there is also a section explaining how to use the Banglapedia, which clarifies issues such as date systems, contributors, cross references, and headings.
¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 00:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need the boxed quote on this topic? It doesn't seem to be directly related to Banglapedia. Is it there simply as an example of a Banglapedia entry? If so it should be properly marked as such. Arman Aziz 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have delisted this article from Good Article status because of the lack of reliable sources used in the article. I just did a sweep of all references used, and I deleted almost 15 (including one that was a Wikipedia mirror site!) that failed WP:RS. This article needs to be resourced with reliable sources (no sources from Banglapedia.org). The lead also needs to be expanded to a size more acceptable per WP:LEAD. The lead should be a comprehensive outline of the entire article. At the moment, it is very brief, and doesn't summarize later sections of the article. Nishkid64 ( talk) 05:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Why was it necessary to remove the cites from the "History of encyclopedias in Bangladesh" section? All that was reliable third party references even by the most stringent of measures. And, how come the book itself is not reference for its content. Do you need a third party reference to tell that, say, Ivan Hoe is a work of fiction? And, while it may need third party references, why was it necessary to remove the existing cites? The mirror cite is a later developement and should appropriately be removed. But, I am talking about the rest. A little explanation would be very helpful. Also, the GA reassessment procedure says something about a discussion. Was there any such thing involved in this delisting? Aditya( talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Here are two independent sources not yet used:
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)I'll try to add some references in the article from here when I get more time. Hopefully we'll restore this article as GA fairly quickly. Arman ( Talk) 08:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts on this GA candidate:
1(a): FAIL. The prose is awkward or confusing in a number of places. I've done a fair amount of copy-editing, but more needs to be done. Some examples: "Education Ministry funded about 74% of the cost." (Missing article); "UNESCO made a contribution under the participation programme through Bangladesh National Commission for UNESCO." (Unclear); "It was followed by Maharaja Kalikirshna Dev Bahadur's (1808-1974) Sankshipta Sadvidyabali (1833), a concise encyclopedia, Raja Radhakanta Deb's Sabdakalpadrum (1822-1858), a Sanskrit encyclopedic dictionary in eight parts, and Rajkrishna Ray (1849-1894) and Saratchandra Dev's (1858-unknown) joint work Bharatkosh, the first Bengali encyclopedia laid-out in alphabetical order (1880-1892) published in three volumes." (A sentence that needs to be broken up and clarified.); "Both of the these two works were celebrated in their own time, a status that Baus's work still enjoys." (Awkward.)
1(b): FAIL. There are two lists, that don't really help the article, and contravene Manual of Style guidelines.
2(a): FAIL. There are lots of sources, but in fact at times this is overkill. There are many points at which it is not clear which source is doing what: there are two instances of "triple footnoting" in the lead, for instance, as well as a double footnote. Again, I've gone through and got rid of some of this. Then there some odd references: "Others, Catalog of Publications, Newsletter, Research Center for Islamic History, Art and Culture, Turkey," for instance. It's not clear what that source is meant to be (even after I follow the link) or how it supports the claim to which it is attached. Plus, and perhaps most importantly, I wonder if this encyclopedia was actually reviewed anywhere. All the sources seem to be news articles and/or press releases.
2(b): FAIL. Not all of the sourcing is accurate. For instance, the references to the Encyclopaedia of Indian literature don't provide article titles, authors (if there are any), or page numbers. And presumably the articles "by" bd24news.com should be sourced directly to that website. Plus I'm not sure about the SDNP source, which seems simply to regurgitate Banglapedia press releases and/or to compile information gleaned from "UNB, Dhaka, The New nation." I'd say go to the original sources, rather than this compilation.
2(c): PASS. Not much sign of original research.
3(a): PASS. I'm no expert in this field, but it seems to me that the major aspects of the topic are addressed.
3(b): FAIL. There is lots of unnecessary (or at best marginally necessary) detail. There are far too many numbers and statistics. This could be addressed if you could find reviews of the book.
4: PASS. A marginal pass here, as the tendency is towards celebration of the very existence of this publication; but that seems to reflect the sources on the whole.
5: PASS. The article is stable.
6(a): FAIL. There is an image, but I don't understand it: it purports to be a self-created "digital recreation" of the cover. Is this the cover or not? How does it differ from the cover, if not? It would seem to make more sense to have an image of the cover itself!
6(b): PASS. Yup, a cover image is appropriate.
So overall, I'm afraid I have to FAIL the article. It just seems to fail on too many counts. There's been much valiant effort here, and I particularly commend the attempt to place the topic within the context of the history of encyclopedias of Bangladesh. But right now, the article doesn't make it. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 08:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I just found myself here for a few minutes, and noticed the phrase "over 5,781" entries, which is in fact repeated. It seems rather odd because it's simultaneously vague and precise. I'd have thought you either put a specific figure (It has 5,782 entries or whatever the number is) or you gave a more general estimage (It has over 5,700 entries, or almost 6,000 entries...). -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 07:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This is, on the whole, a good article. The one problem is this paragraph:
“ | When the project began, the Society had only eight hundred thousand taka in its coffers for the project. Banglapedia raised further contributions from universities, banks, multinational companies, international organisations and even private individuals.[9] A pool of agencies, including UNESCO, the University Grants Commission, universities, financial institutions and NGOs initially financed the project, which was completed at a cost of taka 80 million.[4][1][1] Education Ministry funded about 74% of the cost,[4] while 26% of the fund came mostly from universities and banks.[6] Before direct sales started in 3 January 2003, four thousand copies of the English version and all but 250 copies of the Bengali version were sold out of the initial 5,000 copies for each versions.[5] For an additional run of 10,000 prints people waited in queues outside the Asiatic Society office on the day of the release, and sales continued until 9:30 in the evening. A total of 4,500 sets of the Bangla version and 2,500 of the English version were sold.[6] | ” |
That's my correction of it, but I have to admit I'm not sure if I got it right: "Akkas, Abu Jar M. "Banglapedia edition every 2 years", The Weekly Holiday, 2004-05-23, pp. Front Page." is no longer available online, so I couldn't check against it, and I have to admit I ended up guessing at what was intended for " Before direct sales started in 3 January 2003, four thousand copies of the English version and all but 250 copies of the Bengali version were sold out of the initial 5,000 copies for each versions.[5] For an additional run of 10,000 prints people waited in queues outside the Asiatic Society office on the day of the release, and sales continued until 9:30 in the evening. A total of 4,500 sets of the Bangla version and 2,500 of the English version were sold.[6]" - please check I got that right.
Everything else is well-written, accurate, broad in scope, etc, etc. I'd suggest doing another peer review next, then trying this out as a featured article. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 11:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, I wasn't sure where to put this on the WP:Good articles page. Does Wikipedia:Good_articles#Cultural_and_social_studies sound alright to everyone? It's a class of Social studies and society. If someone sees a better place, move it there =) Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 11:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The Banglapedia site appears to be dead, for see here for an example. Can it still be used as a reference in Wikipedia? Pahari Sahib 08:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Banglapedia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Banglapedia has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please refer to Talk:Sirajul Islam#Merge. -- Ragib 08:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Passages like this are neither referenced nor NPOV:
It is easy to navigate, laid out in alphabetical order and is prefaced by an extremely detailed essay by the Chief Editor. However, there is also a section explaining how to use the Banglapedia, which clarifies issues such as date systems, contributors, cross references, and headings.
¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 00:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need the boxed quote on this topic? It doesn't seem to be directly related to Banglapedia. Is it there simply as an example of a Banglapedia entry? If so it should be properly marked as such. Arman Aziz 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have delisted this article from Good Article status because of the lack of reliable sources used in the article. I just did a sweep of all references used, and I deleted almost 15 (including one that was a Wikipedia mirror site!) that failed WP:RS. This article needs to be resourced with reliable sources (no sources from Banglapedia.org). The lead also needs to be expanded to a size more acceptable per WP:LEAD. The lead should be a comprehensive outline of the entire article. At the moment, it is very brief, and doesn't summarize later sections of the article. Nishkid64 ( talk) 05:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Why was it necessary to remove the cites from the "History of encyclopedias in Bangladesh" section? All that was reliable third party references even by the most stringent of measures. And, how come the book itself is not reference for its content. Do you need a third party reference to tell that, say, Ivan Hoe is a work of fiction? And, while it may need third party references, why was it necessary to remove the existing cites? The mirror cite is a later developement and should appropriately be removed. But, I am talking about the rest. A little explanation would be very helpful. Also, the GA reassessment procedure says something about a discussion. Was there any such thing involved in this delisting? Aditya( talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Here are two independent sources not yet used:
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)I'll try to add some references in the article from here when I get more time. Hopefully we'll restore this article as GA fairly quickly. Arman ( Talk) 08:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts on this GA candidate:
1(a): FAIL. The prose is awkward or confusing in a number of places. I've done a fair amount of copy-editing, but more needs to be done. Some examples: "Education Ministry funded about 74% of the cost." (Missing article); "UNESCO made a contribution under the participation programme through Bangladesh National Commission for UNESCO." (Unclear); "It was followed by Maharaja Kalikirshna Dev Bahadur's (1808-1974) Sankshipta Sadvidyabali (1833), a concise encyclopedia, Raja Radhakanta Deb's Sabdakalpadrum (1822-1858), a Sanskrit encyclopedic dictionary in eight parts, and Rajkrishna Ray (1849-1894) and Saratchandra Dev's (1858-unknown) joint work Bharatkosh, the first Bengali encyclopedia laid-out in alphabetical order (1880-1892) published in three volumes." (A sentence that needs to be broken up and clarified.); "Both of the these two works were celebrated in their own time, a status that Baus's work still enjoys." (Awkward.)
1(b): FAIL. There are two lists, that don't really help the article, and contravene Manual of Style guidelines.
2(a): FAIL. There are lots of sources, but in fact at times this is overkill. There are many points at which it is not clear which source is doing what: there are two instances of "triple footnoting" in the lead, for instance, as well as a double footnote. Again, I've gone through and got rid of some of this. Then there some odd references: "Others, Catalog of Publications, Newsletter, Research Center for Islamic History, Art and Culture, Turkey," for instance. It's not clear what that source is meant to be (even after I follow the link) or how it supports the claim to which it is attached. Plus, and perhaps most importantly, I wonder if this encyclopedia was actually reviewed anywhere. All the sources seem to be news articles and/or press releases.
2(b): FAIL. Not all of the sourcing is accurate. For instance, the references to the Encyclopaedia of Indian literature don't provide article titles, authors (if there are any), or page numbers. And presumably the articles "by" bd24news.com should be sourced directly to that website. Plus I'm not sure about the SDNP source, which seems simply to regurgitate Banglapedia press releases and/or to compile information gleaned from "UNB, Dhaka, The New nation." I'd say go to the original sources, rather than this compilation.
2(c): PASS. Not much sign of original research.
3(a): PASS. I'm no expert in this field, but it seems to me that the major aspects of the topic are addressed.
3(b): FAIL. There is lots of unnecessary (or at best marginally necessary) detail. There are far too many numbers and statistics. This could be addressed if you could find reviews of the book.
4: PASS. A marginal pass here, as the tendency is towards celebration of the very existence of this publication; but that seems to reflect the sources on the whole.
5: PASS. The article is stable.
6(a): FAIL. There is an image, but I don't understand it: it purports to be a self-created "digital recreation" of the cover. Is this the cover or not? How does it differ from the cover, if not? It would seem to make more sense to have an image of the cover itself!
6(b): PASS. Yup, a cover image is appropriate.
So overall, I'm afraid I have to FAIL the article. It just seems to fail on too many counts. There's been much valiant effort here, and I particularly commend the attempt to place the topic within the context of the history of encyclopedias of Bangladesh. But right now, the article doesn't make it. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 08:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I just found myself here for a few minutes, and noticed the phrase "over 5,781" entries, which is in fact repeated. It seems rather odd because it's simultaneously vague and precise. I'd have thought you either put a specific figure (It has 5,782 entries or whatever the number is) or you gave a more general estimage (It has over 5,700 entries, or almost 6,000 entries...). -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 07:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This is, on the whole, a good article. The one problem is this paragraph:
“ | When the project began, the Society had only eight hundred thousand taka in its coffers for the project. Banglapedia raised further contributions from universities, banks, multinational companies, international organisations and even private individuals.[9] A pool of agencies, including UNESCO, the University Grants Commission, universities, financial institutions and NGOs initially financed the project, which was completed at a cost of taka 80 million.[4][1][1] Education Ministry funded about 74% of the cost,[4] while 26% of the fund came mostly from universities and banks.[6] Before direct sales started in 3 January 2003, four thousand copies of the English version and all but 250 copies of the Bengali version were sold out of the initial 5,000 copies for each versions.[5] For an additional run of 10,000 prints people waited in queues outside the Asiatic Society office on the day of the release, and sales continued until 9:30 in the evening. A total of 4,500 sets of the Bangla version and 2,500 of the English version were sold.[6] | ” |
That's my correction of it, but I have to admit I'm not sure if I got it right: "Akkas, Abu Jar M. "Banglapedia edition every 2 years", The Weekly Holiday, 2004-05-23, pp. Front Page." is no longer available online, so I couldn't check against it, and I have to admit I ended up guessing at what was intended for " Before direct sales started in 3 January 2003, four thousand copies of the English version and all but 250 copies of the Bengali version were sold out of the initial 5,000 copies for each versions.[5] For an additional run of 10,000 prints people waited in queues outside the Asiatic Society office on the day of the release, and sales continued until 9:30 in the evening. A total of 4,500 sets of the Bangla version and 2,500 of the English version were sold.[6]" - please check I got that right.
Everything else is well-written, accurate, broad in scope, etc, etc. I'd suggest doing another peer review next, then trying this out as a featured article. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 11:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, I wasn't sure where to put this on the WP:Good articles page. Does Wikipedia:Good_articles#Cultural_and_social_studies sound alright to everyone? It's a class of Social studies and society. If someone sees a better place, move it there =) Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 11:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The Banglapedia site appears to be dead, for see here for an example. Can it still be used as a reference in Wikipedia? Pahari Sahib 08:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Banglapedia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)