Talk:Coast Veddas

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Nevertheless they also inhabit a few south of Batticalao as well. - a few what south?

    Done

   Clans and family organization: this section appears to be about the interior Vedars. What is is its relevance here?

    Clarified the relationship

   Language: The first two sentences repeat information already given above.

    Done

   Consistency, sometimes they are described as Veddas sometimes as Vedars or Vedar. This is confusing.

    Interior Veddas versus Vedar clarifiedKanatonian (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I assume good faith for all print sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Th Sri Lankan Civil War and its impact is mentioned, but is there anything about the conditions during the last few months of the war and now. Are they still in camps like much of \the Tamil population?

 I will check for any published information, although I doubt specific coverage about them...Kanatonian (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Ok, not essentila, I realise that it may be very hard to find details on this. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, an interesting article. I am placing it on hold for seven days for the above issues to be addressed. Place any comments or responses here, I have watchlisted this page and will be checking regularly. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

   Thank you for the reworking. I am now happy to list this as a good article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coast Veddas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090925032359/http://ejournal.anu.edu.au/index.php/bippa/article/viewFile/21/20 to http://ejournal.anu.edu.au/index.php/bippa/article/viewFile/21/20

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

GA status revocation

I will be listing my concerns. Soon. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Article name

The name of this article has an English end-s , while the article Vedda doesn't. Is this an actual distinction or should we better strive for consistency? ◅ Sebastian 20:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Indigenous status

There appears to be a contradiction with the article Vedda. In this article we have “Vedar are not designated as an indigenous community of Sri Lanka.” but there we have that they (along with other groups) “are accorded indigenous status”. Which is correct? ◅ Sebastian 20:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Vedar

The article often contains the spelling “Vedar”. Is that synonymous to “Veddas”? In the section Geographic distribution the first sentence seems to have that meaning, but the rest of that section ) speaks of “Vedar” apparently meaning Coast Veddas. ◅ Sebastian 20:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Interior Veddas, geographic distribution

What are “interior Veddas”? As an uninformed reader I would assume those are rather in the interior of the island, such as “the interior Veddas of Dambana” mentioned in the article Vedda. If that is so, why is the section Clans of the interior Veddas here, not there?

A similar confusion exists at Economic status in the sentence “the Vedar [as opposed to] the rest of the Indigenous population of the interior.”, which to me implies that the Vedar are a population of the interior. ◅ Sebastian 20:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Language

In section Language, in the sentence “Vedar children also study in that language in schools.”, the antecedent for “that language” is ambiguous. A strict interpretation of the term “language” would mean Tamil, but if one considers a dialect as a language, it would mean Batticaloa Tamil. ◅ Sebastian 20:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Eastern society

What does “Eastern society” (at Economic status) mean? (a) something like Eastern_world#Culture or (b) the society of Eastern SL? If the latter: What is the purpose of the distinction? Why not say something like “Sri Lankan society”? ◅ Sebastian 20:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)