Wikipedia:Peer review/Chola dynasty/archive1

Cholas

I have been working on this article and its children under Category:Cholas for the past fewmonths. I think the Chola dynasty has had a great influence for the Tamil culture and there isn't much authentic information available on the Net. This is my attempt at going directly to the academic sources for the information rather than relying on second hand information. I would like you to review this and together we can make this a Featured Article.

thanks

Parthi (Venu62) 00:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is rich in content. Following improvements should be made before it makes it to featured status.

The first five section names chould be changed or the sections themselves should be reorganised.
The lead should be summarised per WP:LEAD.
The article should be renamed as Chola empire if that's the subject.

We can look at Indo-Greek Kingdom, Sassanid Empire and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sassanid Empire/archive1 for improvements. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sundar for your suggestions/comments. I have spent some time editing the Cholas article to make your suggested changes. I have reduced the lise of the lead paragraphs, standardised the headings and restructured them. I feel it now flows better. The article now is divided into two logical parts: (a) History and (b) Chola's contribution to the society, art and literature.

I feel 'Cholas' is the appropriate title and not 'Chola Empire'. This is not an article about the empire, but the people and persons who built these empires (for there was not one chola empire, but several throughout their history).

Parthi (Venu62) 03:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, Sir. I take your suggestion regarding the article title. Let's wait for other reviewers' views. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comments

Hi - it is an excellent piece of work. You have done the needful as far in-line citations are concerned. Here are my observations:

Please read WP:MOS. You must write proper paras of prose, with summary style. Please eliminate all subdivisions of 2-3 liners.
In accordance with the above point, please reduce the contents box, as recommended by WP:WIAFA.
Please cross-check source and copyright info regarding all pictures.
Article name - you should name this article "Chola dynasty." By simply naming "Cholas," which might be alrite, you may mislead readers into believing Cholas were an ethnic group or something. As per your first line, the article's name should be Chola dynasty IMO. Also, the infobox says "Chola Empire." Please correct this as per your final decision.
Please eliminate all "red links" by creating stubs.
All Quotes should be cited.

Rama's Arrow 06:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AreJay's comments

Wow, this was a very interesting read. My knowledge of the Cholas was cursory at best before I read the article. Here are some of my observations wrt the article:

The article is very informative, however portions such as History, Government and Legacy need to confirm with the Wikipedia:Summary style format. This would entail summarizing the contents each section and eliminating sub-sections within the article. Specific detail should be moved to History of the Cholas, Government in the Chola Kingdom, etc.
There should be no need for one/two sentence paragraphs in a Wikipedia article. Such paragraphs must be merged to promote continuity and flow.
The History of the Indian subcontinent template must be moved to the top of the page.
As suggested in the previous review, take some time to familiarize yourself with WP:MOS and how the guidelines contained therein affect the structure and format of your article.
A Tamil translation of the word Cholas should be included in the first sentence of the article.
Chola legacy may be too broad a topic. I feel that Chola art, Chola architecture and Chola literature are all topics that warrant independent discussion in this article. Grouping them in a category as broad as "legacy" would not, I feel, do justice to the contributions of that dynasty.
Online references and Publications should fall under the same banner (References) without independent sub-headings. Also, you might want to standardize your formatting style for references. I typically use the MLA style manual though Wikipedia guidelines do not indicate a preference of one style over the other. Alternatively, you might want to explore the Chicago-style and APA style as well. It's not important what style you choose, however the consistant application of your style of choice will be looked at during FAC.
Hope this helps, when a majority of the above mentioned comments are addressed, I'd like to come in to do any last minute house cleaning before you promote the article to WP:FAC. Thanks, and good luck! AreJay 00:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks gents for your help and input. I have taken all your suggestions and made appropriate changes to the article:

I have changed the title to Chola dynasty as I agree this would be the most appropriate and helpful to a non-Tamil reader. However I haven't redirected the Chola article as I wasn't sure how to preserve the history and discussion pages. Appreciate if you can help.

~~Oh, it had to be done differently, but that's fine. Let me see if I can merge the edit histories. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)~~ Fixed it by performing CUTPASTE operation for page histories. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have condensed the paragraphs and combined smaller ones into a summary style paragraphs. I have moved some of the omitted text to the notes area.
I have standardised the citations
I think the style throughout is consistent. I am however open for corrections. I couldn't spend too much time on this today as I have chores to run, but hopfully will try and have another go tomorrow.

Thanks once again for your help. Parthi (Venu62) 05:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing work. I'm sure it'll have it's day on the main page. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sundar, thanks for your help with the merging/renaming. I have made some further updates towards reducing the number of sections. It needs a good review and further suggestions for improvements.

Thanks Parthi (Venu62) 07:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I wonder if you have had the opportunity to address my suggestion of summarizing History, Government and Culture per Wikipedia:Summary style? I think it is faily important that you do act on this. You will need to remove sub-headings and summarize content appropriately (you can retain the sub-headings in each of the main articles - History of the Chola Empire, Government under the Chola Empire and Culture of the Chola Empire). Also, I think Art, Religion and Literature should be independent topics and not sub-topics. Also, please simplify your ToC to read "History", "Government", "Art", "Religion", "Literature" etc. What does "Sources of the Chola" mean? Perhaps it would be more apt to refer to this section as "Origins"?

~~"Sources" section details the information sources available on the Chola dynasty.~~ - Parthi (Venu62) 23:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now renamed this section "Origins" as the comment by AreJay is appropriate. The section talks about the origins and the information we currently on the orgins of Cholas. - Parthi (Venu62) 22:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also clarify what you mean by the phrase "dynasty of unknown antiquity". By reading this phrase I get the impression that we do not know when and over what period of time the Chola empire existed. This is obviously not true since we've listed a series of rulers with approximate dates. Can you clarify? AreJay 23:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement : dynasty of unknown antiquity is meant to convey that when they originated is lost. Perhaps I should re-phrase : The Chola dynasty was a South Indian Tamil dynasty of ancient origins, antedating..."?

I have tried to combine the sub topics under the History, Government and Culture and renamed the Culture section into 'Contributions to culture' as per User: Rama's Arrow's comments. Do you have further suggestions to change?

Parthi (Venu62) 23:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean I have to further edit out copy under the subsection? If so I will need to look at it and do it so that we don't lose too much information from this article. - Parthi (Venu62) 23:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have been unable to follow the progress of this article the past few days. my concerns above seem to have been addressed. I will review the article first opportunity I get to see if I have any other suggestions to throw your way. Thanks AreJay 18:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with the Toc is in a mess. Avoid using subsections as far as possible, it clutters things up. Consider promoting sections or merging sections together. Topics on Chola history should come in the =history= section. Move left-aligned images to the right. Some of them conflict with the headings below in lower resolutions. List of Chola Kings table needs a left margin. Remove lists. More maps would be useful to gauge the extent of the kingdom over the years. I'll review in depth later, after the above have been cleaned up. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

Hi - one key concern: I believe this section is inappropriately organized. Consider re-titling it "Culture" or "Civilization": You should incorporate "Science" and "Religion" with "Art" and "Literature." This will make the article comprehensive. For discussing "Legacy," that should be a sub-section in civilization and discusses the impact of Chola culture on succeeding times in India. My congratulations to you on a splendid effort. This will really become a great FA. Rama's Arrow 22:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed the "Culture" section and moved the subsection "Religion" under this. I couldn't find any info on contributions to Science as such, but I will be adding a paragraphy under "Education" under this section today.

Parthi (Venu62) 23:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condensing

Ok, I think I'm getting closer to meeting the above suggestions:

Government and Society sections summarised
Images and info boxes all right aligned
Will be adding a section on literacy under Cholas

Parthi (Venu62) 00:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have had some time to rethink the article and have made structural changes to make to more compliant with the WP standards. The TOC is less messy now and the sections have been condensed to make them read better. Please have anoth look and let me know. - Parthi (Venu62) 20:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, you are more than all set for FAC. Don't delay (or worry) - all relevant criticism will only be obtained there. Cheers, Rama's Arrow 05:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review 2

I still have many issues with the article:

The Chola dynasty (சோழர் குலம்) (IPA:['ʧuʒə]) was a South Indian Tamil dynasty of ancient origins,[1]antedating the early Sangam literature (c. 150 CE).[ -- makes a very poor introduction. The first sentence should answer the how, when and why to a new reader.
1. Tamil is South Indian
2. Sangam literature --> why introduce Sangam at an early stage in the article?
3. I would write it as: The Chola dynasty was a Tamil dynasty that ruled Southern India and parts of South East between..."
Remove சோழர் குலம in the infobox as well as other instances of Tamil in the text. (other than the lead)
Similarly remove the bold text in the article.
List of Chola kings table should bbe moved to the history section.
Light-Medium copyedit required.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 08:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nichalp for your comments:

I have changed the intro taking your suggestion.
I have moved the mention of the relation to the Sangam Literature to the origins section
Removed bolding from the body
Removed Tamil from the body and left them only inthe footnotes as they are ther to support the article
Moved the List of kings down to the History section
I have not removed the tamil சோழர் குலம from the infobox as I felt it was not unusual to do so (see Sassanid Empire, Byzantine Empire - both FAs).

I would appreciate if someone other than myself could do the copyedit as I am too close to the article.

Any more suggestions before we move this to the FAC stage would be most welcome and I will quickly respond.

Thanks and cheers Parthi (Venu62) 22:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a round of copyediting. We could still do well with fewer adjectives and the language should be less "flowery" and more neutral. (Well, I must admit that I like to read flowery language myself.) I'm not sure if we should use present tense while talking about ancient references. This article would benefit greatly from more copyediting. Perhaps we can request User:Tom Radulovich or some other editor to copyedit further although it can be done as it goes through FAC. I was amazed at the amount of information in the article on a sadly less-researched topic. Move on to FAC. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sundar for your edits. I think the article reads much better now. I have also changed the sentence claiming the Brihadisvara Temple being the tallest tower now. It certainly was at its time until more recent constructions such as the Srirangam temple and the Meenakshi Temle in Madurai.

Parthi (Venu62) 22:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. What about the broken sentence that I've commented out? By the way, I've requested Tom and Taxman to have a look at it. I think as the article goes through the FAC process, it'll improve with other editors jumping in. Can you please nominate it? I can do it for you if you want, but I'd prefer you to be the nominator. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sundar. I think I have fixed that sentence. I will nominate the article and start the FAC process tonight. Cheers Parthi (Venu62) 06:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to allocate time for a thorough review. Hopefully I'll be able to soon. The article is very good of course, so the only lacking things are cosmetic. The biggest thing it needs is to ease the uninitiated reader in more easily. For example, the first couple sentences needs to give an idea of how long the dynasty ruled for, even if you can't specifically say when they started. It could even stand to state right away the beginning time is unknown. But other places in the article also essentially require already knowing the subject to understand them. I'll try to point out specific examples if you want, but in general provide context for any terms that would require following a link to understand the sentence. - Taxman ^Talk 00:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Taxman. I've been trying to rephrase the lead section to meet your suggestion. It used to say Cholas were of unknown antiquity, but wsa felt to be too obscure by some reviewers (see above). I am lost a bit. If you can give me some specific suggestions, I can put those in. - Cheers Parthi (Venu62) 19:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like, "though there is no consensus among scholars when the Chola Dynasty began, they ruled for about X yrs until ____". Or instead of about, put "from X to as many as X years...". Or use "Scholar's estimates of the beginning of the Chola Dynasty range from X to X, meaning they ruled for X yrs until X." Those are a little rough, but do they help? - Taxman ^Talk 21:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]