This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Swami Vivekananda C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Swami Vivekananda, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Swami Vivekananda on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Swami VivekanandaWikipedia:WikiProject Swami VivekanandaTemplate:WikiProject Swami VivekanandaSwami Vivekananda articles C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was last assessed in October 2013. Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. India: History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance). This article was last assessed in May 2012. Hinduism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is a good article, but seems more like a treatise than an encyclopedic article. There is the question of whether so many quotes should be loaded into the references or made more encyclopedic by either a) including some in the article text; or b) simply giving the references without so much overloading. What do other people think? I notice the form of referencing (using a template?) seems to create "scroll hogging" and makes it difficult and tedious to scan the article for copy editing. There are probably arguments for and against this style, but that's my argument against it. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a good article, I think we can decrease the quotes + copy edits. Bluptr (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I will look into improving the article. I also have more stuff to add to this. Nvineeth (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge proposal. This 61k article is a daughter article of Ramakrishna, already long at 67k. According to Wikipedia:Summary style: "The parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects." Priyanath ^talk 18:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The split was done in a POV way. It's wrong and dishonest to put all of the information that you favor at the main article and all of the information that you'd like to hide at the daughter article. Also --- there's no substantive difference between the "views" on Ramakrishna content and the "books" on Ramakrishna content. — goethean ॐ 22:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, This article summarizes all the scholarship, giving due weightage. From what is apparent from the discussion, you want to include only Kali's Child and exclude all the other scholars. So there is no question of "wrong and dishonest". What need to be addressed is undue weightage and systematic bias. also, as priyanath pointed out, the article size is another factor. Nvineeth (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A book review by Philip Goldberg and two responses to it. Devadaru (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]