Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lothal

Lothal

Peer review Self-nomination: After a closely planned construction, extensive copyediting, building a strong graphics base and a good peer review, I now submit this article to FAC and request your vote to make it a featured article. I would like to address 3 concerns that are likely to arise:

One primary source: This issue has been repeatedly clarified by me - I found after a lot of hunting that only one source- this ASI guidebook - providing the many details listed in this article. I've taken care not to import POV or problematic materials, but owing to the lack of other primary-class sources, this article should not be felt wanting due to this reason.
Extinction theory: While the extinction of Indus civilization is a hotly debated topic, the ASI guidebook provides archaeological evidence to project the destruction of Lothal via floods. Now I've taken precautions to present this assertion as NPOV as possible, but there is no other major theory that specifically describes what happened to Lothal, and I don't want to import the Indus debate into this article, becoz its not specific to Lothal. Besides, the citations lead to further archaeological evidence to back up the flood theory.
Citations: It may appear that some facts are not backed up with citations. This is wrong, since a lot of facts were often from the same page, I've had to place in-line citations a little more selectively than in other articles. All facts are properly cited.

I hope you will vote for this article. Thank you. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 05:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work by the nominator. This article has had a long and extensive peer review and all issues raised there have been addressed. And I agree with the explanation given by Rama's Arrow for the potential concerns. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets all requirements. DaGizza^Chat ^© 09:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great work, Rama's Arrow! Unquestionably, as with Harappa and Mohenjo-daro, there are often more questions than answers. This article is comprehensive in its detailing of original research and archeological findings on the subject. AreJay 14:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yes, I do agree with above. The work is really a milestone in the India related topics. --Bhadani 16:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment footnote 2 (endnote_BBC) is missing, this is screwing up all the endnotes after note 1. Is it ok if I, or someone else, converts the format to m:Cite/Cite.php to avoid this type of error from happening if future footnotes are placed/removed in the text? --maclean25 17:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to above the BBC endnote is located in the picture of Indus script, at the opening of "Civilization." Rama's Arrow 21:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see. I moved it to the correct location. Now the Notes are fine until around 15 or 16 where they start missing their targets. --maclean25 22:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object; some fine-tuning is necessary. I don't understand "The main sewer has an average is 1 foot 40 inches high, 46 cm - 20 cm deep and 86 cm to 68 cm to 33 cm in width." Intended meaning is rather obscure—if it's an average, there should only be one number for each dimension—and there's no reason to change system of measurement half way through. Also, I noted a few inconsistencies w.r.t. BCE vs. BC—pick one and go with it. The use of   seems to be inconsistent; make sure that it is used between numbers and their units. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the above objections have been duly addressed. Please note that "86 x 68 x 33 cm" is a cited reference, and on average here also means that the "excavated" remains measurements vary becoz its structurally fragmented on many sides. Rama's Arrow 21:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've rearranged that units section slightly; I feel that it's more readable. Another question—what is this "Egyptian Oedet" that is mentioned in "Science, mathematics and engineering". And in the same section, "served as a compass to measure angles on plane surfaces or in horizon in multiples of 40–360 degrees". Multiples of 40-360 degrees? I'm having trouble picturing exactly what is meant there. The rest of it looks good; once these things I've just mentioned are fixed or at least explained I'll be ready to support. --Spangineer (háblame) 02:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your concerns have been addressed Rama's Arrow 03:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC) - Egyptian "Oedet" was an Egyptian standard of measurement, a note in the book however not relevant to explain here. Rama's Arrow 04:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Support. --Spangineer (háblame) 04:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The fact that Lothal is the earliest dock (in the intro) might need sources. CG 20:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to above the fact has been cited below - I've tried to keep lead free of citations, and all of the assertions made in the lead are cited below. Rama's Arrow 21:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can use {{inote}} to cite facts in the lead so that citations are only visible in edit mode. Saravask 22:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SupportConditional support. Full support if/when Spangineer strikes out his object vote. Generally excellent work by Rama's Arrow, per my comments in the peer review. Saravask 22:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If no other (acceptable) sources are available on this topic, could we have more information from the same book, to support some statements. Eg: there were red-ware people, and there were Harappans, but what indicates their 50 years of co-residence? In speaking of 4400 years ago, a period of 50 years is a tiny, indiscernible period, so if the Harappans arrived c.2400 BC and the flood destroyed the place c.2350 BC, that is a reasonable question. Also, if there was co-residence, what accounts for the flood washing away the old people but not the new settlers? I suppose the book presents evidence on this and such other questions, so maybe the article could give the info. ImpuMozhi 01:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns have been mostly addressed. The writing does not assert that no Harappans were killed - I've clarified that sentence and added more data to prove co-habitation. Rama's Arrow 03:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest rewording the deadpan statement "A flood destroyed the village (c 2350 BCE), allowing the Harappan settlers to re-develop the land." Even given the narrative format, I would suggest removal of statements like "Despite the ruler leaving the city...", "Independent businesses caved in" etc -- remember we are talking of 4400 years ago, and even the race of these people is debated. Also, may I urge parsimony in drawing conclusions: If no evidence of mother-Goddess worship obtains, that just means that the Lothal people (probably) did not worship that deity; it is hardly an indication of "religious tolerance". (The caption to the mother/sea goddess photo is confusing and needs to be reworded. Can we have some reasoning from the book about how the goddess-figure was identified as a sea-goddess and not a mother-goddess?) Again regarding conclusions, it appears that a single joint-grave has been discovered, in a total of only 17 graves, so does that warrant speculations on Sati and statements like "Lothal is unique amongst Indus-era sites for the practice of joint burials..." and "the practice had been given up by 2000 BC"? ImpuMozhi 02:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns regarding "religious tolerance" and deadpan statements have been addressed. Rama's Arrow 03:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The article's passage on "Sati" emphasizes that it is only the "suggestion" of some Indian archaeologists, as it is stated on the ASI guidebook. I've added more to clarify what the "Sea Goddess" of Lothal is - it is conjectured that Lothal's people worshipped a Sea-specific Mother Goddess not akin to Harappa or Mohenjodaro. No, please do not conclude that only one joint burial was found amongsy 17 graves - the writing does not make that assertion. ASI archaeologists have their own researched basis to make that assertion. There is a limit to the data given in the book, and I've cited accordingly. Rama's Arrow 03:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Again, ALL DATA/FIGURES are CITED. There is none exempt - as I explain in the opening, many facts are found on the same page, so I've placed in-line citations in allowance of that. Rama's Arrow 03:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is the S. R. Rao, Lothal (ASI, 1985) the definitive source on this? Kind of like the Nasr book on Mawdudi? Because, if not I'd be slightly worried about how often it's cited. I don't know about this subject so I won't vote on it but I just wanted to ask. gren グレン 04:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Clarification in response to above, I already clarify in opener here that S.R. Rao's book is the official ASI handbook/guidebook for public information on "Lothal." Now since it is the official ASI book - (1) the ASI-led research is summarized in it, (2) the ASI's conclusions and assertions are summarized in it. For Wikipedia, I've removed, and we continue to remove any POV/problematic assertions, but this is the base of this article as far as factual details go. Rama's Arrow 04:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it would help to expand, in the nomination, ASI to Archaeological Survey of India in order to make people understand its credibility as an official source. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work! I haven't had the time to read it completely, but can't see any major problems. Will try to resolve or comment here if I find any. Keep up the excellent work Nirav! deeptrivia (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Footnotes should be working properly now. I've rearranged the trouble-makers and tested every link both ways. The Catfish 22:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Rama's Arrow 22:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work - my concerns in peer review on other theories of collapse of the civilization have been adequately addressed. It would be good to link "S. R. Rao" in the text of the article and create a stub for him - incl. his work on deciphering the script of the civilization and finding of Dwaraka. --Gurubrahma 02:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think references and further reading should be one section. If all those works in that section were used as references, the section should simply be ==References==. We can assume a work used as a reference is a good place to look if we want to read further. If a work isn't referenced, it needs a separate further reading section. Also, Ibid could be used for the repeated citations of the one source, but it isn't really necessary. The Catfish 03:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've separated the sections, albeit as a sub-section. Please note that these are actually "indirect references," cited by Rao in his book. Rama's Arrow 15:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way to just cite them directly (i.e., perhaps Rao gives page numbers for what he uses)? Saravask 00:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't have a "notes" or glossary. Rama's Arrow 03:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- See this too: [1] =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated that data into the article. Thanks! Rama's Arrow 13:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great work.This should be there on the main page !--Dwaipayanc 15:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object ToC is apparently far too bloated for an FA. It is also poorly referenced and not well formatted. --Bob 17:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]