Talk:Deshastha Brahmin/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: -- Cirt (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 13, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Writing is fair - I am wondering why there are so many citations in the lede itself - per WP:LEADCITE, these could be cited for the same info in the body text of the main article, and the cites then moved out of the lede. Would strongly recommend going through the peer review process and enlisting copyeditors previously uninvolved with the article and its subject matter, prior to another GA nomination.

2. Factually accurate?: Quickfail criteria - there are uncited portions in the article, and {{fact}} tags remaining as of the time of this GA Review.

3. Broad in coverage?: Subsections that appear a bit short with concerns about comprehensiveness include: Philosophy, Demographics (one-sentence-long-paragraph in this subsection), Language, Cuisine, Agrarian land reform.

4. Neutral point of view?: See stability issues, which raise concerns here.

5. Article stability? Not stable at this time, upon inspection of article edit history, there is recent conflict. Talk page shows this as well.

6. Images?: There are many problems with multiple images used in the article - one is missing permission and unresolved and tagged as such at Wikimedia Commons, yet still used in the article at time of GA Review, others should be formatted with image information templates, others lack dates, etc.

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.— -- Cirt (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I will make the recommended changes over the next few weeks. The article did go through a peer review which is archived here [1].

I can fix the citations in the lede in a few days
The {{fact}} tags number 4 which we can fix in a matter of days
The article has been more or less stable/inactive for a month with spurts of activity on 2-3 occasions, the last one being on 5 days back. There are only 2-3 regular editors (including me) and we occasionally have disputes, I don't remember anyone undoing changes too often and there's never been an issue with the 3RR.
I can fix images in a couple of days.

Any chance that this can still be assessed for GA if these changes are made AND copyeditng performed? Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zuggernaut, On #6 , what does the reviewer want ? I have released the images for general use. I am not sure what he is saying about formatting and the dates ? Let's get clarification on these points .Shakher59 21:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakher59 (talk • contribs)

I will ask the reviewer Cirt to comment. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Deshastha Brahmins are a part of the four percent of the total Brahmin population in Maharashtra[19] and they constitute sixty percent of the total Brahmin population in Maharahstra" self-contradiction YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmins constitute 4% population of Maharashtra. Out of that 4% total, 60% belong to the deshastha sub-caste. I hope it is clear now.24.187.26.104 (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I already broke up the sentence in to and it reads:

The Brahmin caste constitutes four percent of the total population in Maharashtra.[19] The Deshastha Brahmin sub-caste constitutes 60 percent of the total Brahmin population in Maharahstra.[20]

Zuggernaut (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]