Wikipedia:Peer review/Deshastha Brahmin/archive1

Deshastha Brahmin

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because:

1. I need advice on what needs to be done to make this a good article (GA).
2. Whether this article needs to be shortened. If so how?
3. What should be done of some of the citation needed tags for which I could not find sources in published literature (yet).

Thanks, Zuggernaut (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There are far too many EL that can be narrowed down (ive tagged it)

Certainly a good, informative article, dont think it needs shortening, not yet anyways. The requisite split-off pages already exist so its good there.

Some section however are uncited, where did that come from? "Attire" for example, and "Religious customs" and "Women" Regarding the ambedkar info does it exist on his page? If not using either online or offline source would be fine. Theres not harm in a fact tag (it exists for a reason) as a call to cites, should nothing be forthcoming say some 2-3 months down the line then it must go. But generally where the all the uncited info come from? Must be a lead from somewhere, even a school textbook, TV, etc. Otherwise i think it can be better than a GA, an A perhaps?

Also use the talk to ask people what questions they may have, theres already one that asks for clarification.

And do the list of brahmins have a link to the page on their page, I just saw Sonali Kulkarni doesnt.Lihaas (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed rewritten the Attire, Death rituals, Wedding sections with citations. I've also merged the Women section with the Wedding section. The Birth ceremonies, Initiation and Kula devata sections still need to be worked on. I will do that in the next couple of days. Some clean up in the sections I've re-written is also required but I will wait to see if the changes spark any discussions. I will include links on prominent Deshasthas articles such as articles. Talk discussion has been addressed. I will also take up work on EL in the subsequent editing sessions. The first instance of the Ambedkar content is cited and the subsequent ones have {{cn}} tags. I didn't get which one you are referring to. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

[1] better now, but still some para's without cites ("ref name=..." cites are okay too) The merge was good too. clear up some clutter.

For the ambedkar part i meant under "Treatment of Dalits" where there are 4 tags, can either cut or cite or remove them (although the latter would come if the call to refs is not forthcoming)Lihaas (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the unnecessary External links, and we've added 9 new citations to paragraphs that lacked them. Some of the older citations have been re-used as well (ref name=). Three {{cn}} tags remain which I will remove if we are unable to find sources in a week or so. The Ambedkar section has been cited or cleaned up.

The clutter has been cleaned up as well. I've also added links to the article on the prominent Deshastha's articles such as Sonali Kulkarni, Dnyaneshwar, etc. Incoming links have also been added to articles on Marathi and Pune.

We will go for a A-class/GA nomination once all recommendations from this peer review are implemented. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I havent read it just now, but it seems good if you done all this. Should also boost the profile of the page somewhat per adding to other pages. (although was there a cite for the "famous" Deshastha Brahmin? Anyway, good luck.Lihaas (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)