Talk:Tarakeswar affair

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tarakeswar affair/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dwaipayanc (talk · contribs) 04:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Will put comments soon.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• Mahant needs to be in italics in all instances.

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• " In a rare exception to the general theme of immorality..." In this sentence, it seems the name or mention of the exception is missing. Which one was exceptional?

General theme: mahant misuses Elokeshi; exception: his love is portrayed to be genuine ... --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, but which one was the exception. I mean, which play/drama was the exception to the general rule? In what play his love was portrayed to be genuine?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Exception play named. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• " In the first meeting scene, Elokeshi is sometimes depicted as a courtesan..." In plays, farces or the paintings, or in newspaper reports? --Dwaipayan (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Specified. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Probably the isbn of Tanika Sarkar's book need some change. The Amazon is not using that isbn.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems to use different isbns. [1]. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Also, I see that in Swati Cjattopadhyay's wrtining, there is some discussion/commentary/discourse on the event from a historical/social perspective, such as the theme of loss of traditional Indian culture in the face of colonialism. Also, some comments while dissecting the event from different planes (village versus city, priest versus bhadralok, colonial state versus nationalist community etc) are available. These can be mentioned in assessment section.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Can you please give me a reference (like book, pages, your source of info) about what needs to be added. Are you referring to Representing Calcutta: modernity, nationalism, and the colonial uncanny or some other book? Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes that's the book, page 229 to 237.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Will add over the weekend. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Added. 'Public reaction' has similar views. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• the lead says that the scandal occurred in Calcutta. I feel Bengal would be a better term. Although the court case took place in Calcutta, the scandal was in public memory throughout Bengal. Moreover, the place where the incident happened, Tarakeshwar, is not in Calcutta, it's probably more than 50 km away.

[2] [3] References focus on Calcutta, rather than Bengal. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• European judge Field-->British judge.

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Judge Field versus judge Field. Both are used.

• in former, used as a title. In latter, common noun. the European judge Field. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Public reaction : A newspaper remarked... Which newspaper?

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• ... To control the crowd at sessions court--> at Hooghly Sessions Court.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• "At least 34 farces were published by the "popular press" on the events of the Tarakeswar affair—the rape, the murder and the trial. At least four of these were reprinted several times and Mohanter Ei ki Kaj! became a money-spinning play on stage.". A few sentences later, " At least 19 plays were also based on the scandal, all of which became very popular and big money-makers". Was Mohanter Ei Ki Kaj a farce or a play?

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• "This is the largest number of 19th-century farces created in response to a contemporary event" largest number in Bengal/India/world?

Author is not very specific. Using smallest unit - Bengal. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• "...read that after the murder,...". Either after the murder, or, after he murdered.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

"after the murder" (after the event) is right here IMO. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• In the lead, I feel the presence of two phrases within dashes is causing some unnecessary break in reading. IMO, "then the capital of the British Raj" can be removed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

V&A museum link talks about in the historical significance section. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Also, the lead may be slightly expanded by incorporating some stuff from the section "Assessment and portrayal of the characters".--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comments from CorrectKnowledge

CorrectKnowledge (talk · contribs) posted some comments on the article in my talk page. I am copy-pasting those here:

• A few minor prose clarity issues remain. For instance, "the mahant allegedly seduced and raped her".. who alleges this? If it was Nobin or someone related to him, it would be significant enough to be mentioned here. "Despite the rape, the affair continued with..."... this is ambiguous. This is the first sentence about the affair. If the affair has continued then when did it start, did it start before or after the rape? There are at least two places where the Mahant has been called a Brahmin (for instance "immoral activities of the Brahmin mahant") and in one sentence it is said the pleas for mercy came from "the lower social hierarchy". Reading the whole article there appears to be a caste angle to the topic, but with surname like "Banerjee" (I'm not trying to do a Guha here :)), that too in 19th century Bengal, I would doubt this. If such an angle doesn't exist then it perhaps some kind of clarification right at the beginning would help.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

(modified comment)

• allegedly -> The ref says that he was "accused". by whom is not said explicitly, but probably the village folk.
• affair is any sexual relationship. The seduction/rape is the first mention
• I could not detect a caste angle mention in ref anywhere explicitly.
  • The ref says that the behaviour was thought to be unworthy of a Brahmin.
  • The first "Brahmin" is part of definition of mahant.
  • the lower social hierarchy is an antithesis of elite in the sentence. To convey the highest as well as the lowest agreed. No caste connotation.

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sarkar cites the Quenn vs Nobin Chandra Banerjee as her source. The accusation must have been made by one of the parties involved in the trial. Unfortunately, Sarkar hasn't made this explicit, so we can't draw any conclusions from this.

• No action. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, seduction/rape is mentioned first, but only as an accusation. No continuity chronological or otherwise is implied with the following sentences. You have used "the affair continued" which I don't think is appropriate. IMO, the description of the affair in Hindu Wife, Hindu Nation: Community, Religion, and Cultural Nationalism starts at "The Mohunt had established...". Don't connect it to the accusation of rape.

• Done. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• You have used "lower social hierarchy" whereas Sarkar uses "lower middle class". There is a substantial difference between the two terms. One cannot be used as a substitue for another. Besides, if you are suggesting that "the behaviour was thought to be unworthy of a Brahmin", "activities immoral for the Brahmin Mahant" would be better phrasing than "the immoral activities of the Brahmin mahant". A rider here, I have not read Ref #2, so I can't comment on which would be the more accurate paraphrashing of the source.

• Added "lower middle class". Removing Brahmin. "immoral activities" is a better flow. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

"An affair began with the "connivance" of..." onwards can probably go into a separate paragraph. All other issues raised by me have been adequately addressed. As I have pointed out elsewhere, I like the way this article has been written. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 22:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Made paras: background, night of murder, court case.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• In the lead, "The murder victim Elokeshi is sometimes blamed as the seductress, who is the root cause of the affair, but sometimes absolved her of all guilt, describing how she falls prey to the mahant's trickery and is raped." Is this correct grammar-wise? The part "sometimes absolved her of all guilt", what is the subject of this verb "absolved" here?--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The phrase should be "sometimes absolved of her guilt". The sentence would still be incorrect though, "describing how she falls prey to the mahant's trickery and is raped" is just hanging there at the end with no connection to anything before it. The sentence probably needs to be broken into two. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 23:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Corrected. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Some nitpicking
• The article opens with "The Tarakeswar affair... refers to the public scandal.." So, the affair here is referring to the scandal itself. However, second para of lead starts with "The affair led to the decapitation of Elokeshi by her husband...". In this case, what "the affair" is referring to? Definitely not the public scandal in Calcutta, as the scandal happened afterwards, during the trial. So, this "affair" needs to be re-worded.

The first affair is "a matter occasioning public anxiety, controversy, or scandal". The other affair is "love affair". Reworded. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Elokeshi's parents, with whom she stayed in Tarakeswar while Nobin was away on work in Calcutta, are considered guilty for the event.". They are always considered so, or, in some farces?--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The many farces (ref does not say all) consider them guilty. So it is the general view. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• In my opinion, this article meets GA criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

SOURCES

• (Page 13) (Original research)
• (Original research; trivial)
• (Inaccesible)
• (Not Original research)
• (Original research)
• (Original research; by Additional Commissioner of Police, Kolkata)
• (Original research)
• (No idea; Google locates some stuff but I can't)
• The Englishman, The Bengalee, Hindoo Patriot, Halisahar Patrika (All available at NL)

∯WBG^converse 11:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

References