Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Lothal/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lothal

[edit]

Hi All - I request your assistance and advice on raising this article to FA status. It would be fabulous to have an article regarding one of the greatest glories of ancient India's civilizations on FA. I've expanded the text data and added pictures, but there is a lot of scope for improvement before it becomes FA class. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 21:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, looks good upon cursory glance. A few initial notes:

  • Use non-breaking space   between numbers and their units (i.e., 665 [[candela]]s)
  • Use – to separate numerical ranges (i.e., in fiscal year 2000–2001)
  • Consider reading through WP:MOS in all its hideous entirety — I know it can be a bore, but it'll get these minor issues cleared up w/ less muss.

More critique later ... Saravask 21:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification I know a lot of material has been added from one source, but I've taken care to avoid a blatant copyvio. I'll be making further revisions with your help to incorporate more from other sources. Rama's Arrow 21:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the concerns of Sundar and Saravask have been addressed. The few dishonorable exceptions include:

(1) the compass-8/12 division of sky note in intro is referenced thru the "science" section.

Rama's Arrow 20:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Hi All - All the images have been put under fairusein|Lothal license. Only one, the painting portrayal on the top of the page is under questionable copyright - I'm afraid it calls for deletion. Thankfully I have a bunch of personally-taken photographs of Lothal that I can upload here by the weekend. Rama's Arrow 19:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please get refs from more than one source! All the notes on the text are from one source. Besides that, basic copyediting reqd.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This looks like a great article already; it should probably be submitted to FAC soon. However, IMHO some sentences need to be broken up in order to make them easier to read. For example:
"Lothal has of one of the world's earliest dockyards, connecting an ancient course of the Sabarmati river on the trade route between Harappan cities in Sindh and the peninsula of Saurashtra when the surrounding Kutch desert was a part of the Arabian Sea."

I'd personally break this up to read:

"Lothal's dockyards — among the world's earliest — were located on an ancient course of the Sabarmati river. This river served as part of a trade route between the Harappan cities in Sindh and the peninsula of Saurashtra, at which time what is now the surrounding Kutch desert consisted of inlets of the Arabian Sea."
Also, everyday concepts like sati should not be capitalized — as a comparison, do we capitalize "marriage" or "suicide" in English? Only capitalize proper nouns like Bharat Ratna. Thanks. — Saravask 18:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider merging the "Archaeology" and "Excavations" sections — they treat the same material and are each short sections. Saravask 18:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are issues w/ wierd capitalization everywhere (e.g., "City Plan of Lothal" (capitalized "P") and "Acropolis and Lower town" (capitalized "L")). I'm not sure if this is normal in Indian English; nevertheless, please fix per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Capital letters and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Capitalisation. Saravask 18:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Saravask's points

[edit]

Hi - (1) "Archaelogy" is a section talking of Lothal's discovery, associated discoveries in the Gujarat region in terms of Indus valley civilization, and an archaelogical summary of city history. As opposed to that "Excavated City" discusses the sites that a traveler will see in Lothal, of what parts of the city have been excavated, etc. It is better that this section follows the "Charting history" and "Attributes" section, which explains how Lothal people built their place, and that "Archaelogy" be the best first section, leading into a detailed account of history, civilization and the present remains.

(2) I've renamed "Culture" to "Attributes..." becoz culture will often exclude the scientific achievements, economy and industry in its meaning. Also "Excavations is not good" becoz Excavation proper means digging up, nothing else. "Excavated City" is good title to describe the present resurrected remains of Lothal.

Thanks for your help on the grammar. I will introduce fresh re-writes on Monday and Tuesday.

Rama's Arrow 05:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. No problem — thanks for the explanations. I think this is FA material; the fact that most of my comments are on minor issues speaks to this. Hope I'm not nitpicking too much. Since you're the main contributor and have worked hard on this, I have no problems w/ your title naming. Good work. Saravask 06:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I don't think it matters whether all the footnotes point to one source or not; as long as it adheres to WP:NPOV, WP:WIAFA, WP:MOS, WP:NOR, etc., it shouldn't matter. I'll be glad to support even if no other sources are used. Of course, the images do need to be taken care of before FAC. Saravask 21:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know about Google Book Search and Google Scholar? Can get lots of useful info from scholarly sources for new footnotes. Saravask 21:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ascent to FA

[edit]

I will introduce a major round of revisions, fresh information, new images, expansion and re-organization from February 13 to 17, and I believe this article will be ready by February 18. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 14:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


pre-WP:FAC review requested

[edit]

It's very well done, so I'll comment on some deeper points. The biggest issue seems to be that the referencing is heavily focused on one source. I'm sure it was the best source you had, but are there any additional current papers/works that shed significant new light on the issue since the 1985 book? The article doesn't mention any differences of scholarly opinion which I know is quite strong for the Indus Valley civilization in general. Perhaps that doesn't significantly affect this topic, but there's got to be some. Is Lothal's importance or reasons for/manner of downfall disputed at all? If you really wanted to take it to the next level some historiographical analysis would be included. Are there any significant criticisms of the ASI's methods/conclusions that would impact the information in the article? Is there any work on Indus Valley topics by Pakistani researchers that differ from the conclusions presented? Another detailed point is the intro to the 'Civilization' section states the people made significant contributions to human civilization in the era. That's a pretty strong statement and implies they made developments that were adopted elsewhere and did not just adopt what had been discovered by others. It also seems to imply or at least leaves open the possibility that the contributions had lasting effects on later civilization(s). Is there evidence to support either of these points? That paragraph could use expansion anyway as it is a bit short at two sentences. So yes I'm a tough critic, but the quality of the work so far leads me to believe you can meet these points too. - Taxman Talk 16:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[edit]
  1. Sources: This is the official ASI publication which is being used as primary references. I've looked on E-Britannica and some other books and websites on Indus Valley, but none deal with such consummate detail on the subject: Lothal. I can't find any other source that provides such technical detail and explanations on Lothal. I've incorporated data from secondary sources, but this is very specialized (maps, topographical analysis, script) and minor.
  2. Difference of Analysis: I have not included any topic that does not directly concern Lothal. I do not know of any Pakistani work that deals with anything but the broader topics regarding the Indus Valley civilization and the sites in Pakistan; Pakistanis for obvious reasons have never conducted their own research in Lothal. There certainly appears to be no conflict of theories, explanations. There is scholarly debate about how the civilization was wiped out, but there is factual, archaeological evidence provided via the citations in this article that corroborates the details on flood and late Harappan culture regarding Lothal only - I will add the technical details directly after I complete my reply. There is no known critique or counter example of ASI research methods regarding Lothal.
  3. Civilization: certain things like the world's earliest-known dock, 8-12 horizon division have been proven to have occured before anybody else. These are appropriately cited. On this basis was the 2-line opener to the section written. There is also a connection with ancient Vedic customs explored. I didn't intend it to be a large intro.
  4. Citations: please note that since a lot of info comes from one source, I've often put one citation for a bunch of facts coming from the same page. I can say with confidence that there are no technical details or assertions made here that are not cited. The "Lead"'s facts are cited within the article.

I will complete this reply as I make the additions of data requested. Rama's Arrow 17:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A concern

[edit]

I believe there are several theories that look at the disappearance of the Indus valley civilisation. Looking at only the flooding theory, seems incomplete, imo. Otherwise this is a good article. btw, I was wondering if lethal and Lothal have the same etymologicl roots ;) ... --Gurubrahma 12:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Lothal/archive1&oldid=1080985721"