Wikipedia:Peer review/Namadhari naik/archive1

Namadhari naik

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as i want to improve the quality of the article and to quell unreasonable allegations regarding the content.

Thanks, Tej smiles (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by H1nkles

I'm going to make comments regarding the adherence of the article to the Manual of Style, and I'll make prose/grammar suggestions. I know nothing of the subject matter so I can't speak to the content per se.

Lead

See WP:LEAD for thoughts on writing a good lead. The lead should be a summary of every point brought up in the article. The reader should have a skeletal idea of the article's content from reading the lead. The article then puts flesh to the bones and fills in the gaps. This lead is too small and should be expanded to cover all the points brought up in the article.
I note in the lead and throughout the article that there is a space before each punctuation. Why is that? There should be no space, the punctuation should come immediately after. I fixed the lead but the rest of the article should be addressed.
This sentence is confusing

"They are also known as Halepaika (ಹಳೇಪೈಕ) and are referred to as the same in most of the literature."

What literature are you referring to?

Etymology

Watch the use of speculative words like "seems" in the following sentences:

"The word Namadhari seems to be of later origin attributed to their Vaishnavite allegiance . Initially they seem to have been following Shaiva or Jain belief which was widespread in Kannada region ."

There is no source for these two sentences and the reader is left wondering if this is your speculation or is this the opinions of experts in the field. Remember we are writing an encyclopedia based on verified information, not on speculation.

There are some grammatical issues throughout the article that need to be addressed for example:

"In 14th century they were brought to Vaishnava...."

"The" should be added after "In".

"It can be noted here that among the Vokkaligas too there is a grouping called Namadhari Gowda which has similar origin."

"To" not "too".

"This has been referred to by greatest poet of modern Kannada, Kuvempu in his magnum opus Malegalalli Madumagalu."

"The" should be between "by" and "greatest".

This is just in the first paragraph. I made the fixes but there are several of these minor grammatical issues throughout the article.

I'm having trouble with this sentence:

"And to refer them as "old soldiers" during that time should convey the fact that Halepaika formed one of the earliest martial settlers in this part of country ."

It seems as though you are leading the reader to a conclusion based on inference. The problem is the term "should convey". You infer that this is the case but there is no reference to support your supposition. Take a look at WP:OR. I'm not questioning that what you're saying here is correct, it just needs to be supported by more than simply your say so.

In line citations go outside of the punctuation. See this quote as an example: "Govinda Vaidya describes a battle scene where in the Halepaik troops were in action against the invading Bijapur Sultanate army [3]."
Watch putting external links into the article. See WP:LINK for thoughts on this. Most external links should be placed at the end of the article in an External Links section.
What is Toddy Tapping? This is mentioned here and in the lead? Can you explain this a bit for the ignorant readers like myself?

Origins

Watch using terms like "renowned" and "emminent". This is a peacock word and should be avoided.
Most in-line citations should go at the end of sentences not dropped into the middle of a sentence.
The last paragraph in this section is unreferenced, this should be remedied.
I have a question about this portion of a sentence:

"...region long ago and these regions still have a population (1 lakh) by name 'Halaba' speaking 'Halabi' language...."

What is a lakh?

Culture

This section is very poorly referenced. Three in-line citations for the entire section isn't enough.
"The worship of Baleendra [King Mahabali worshipped in Kerala during Onam] during Deepavali has been continuing since ages and is common to almost all communities..." Instead of "...since ages..." choose wording like, "since antiquity".
This section has several one, two or three sentence paragraphs. Consider combining or expanding these to help with the flow of the article.

Tradition

I'm not sure that the name of the section fits the subject matter of the material. This seems to be a list of temples and a bit about religious rituals. Not sure how this ties into "Tradition".
What is Sati? It seems to be both a noun (virtuous wife) and a verb (suicide?).

Sati only needs to be linked once in the section.

"...Baleendra [King Mahabali worshipped in Kerala during Onam]..." This parenthetical reference, "King Mahabali worshipped in Kerala during Onam" is mentioned in the previous section, is there a need to do it again here?
Also only three in-line citations. More should be added.

In popular culture

No references here or in Present conditions and social status section.
More comments on this section are below.

Present conditions and social status

"The literacy rate is high in both males and females and presently the emphasis has been rightly placed on education as may be evident from the fact that many youngsters are opting for higher studies abroad."

It's not our place to say that something has rightly been done or not. Opinions about the community's emphasis on education should not be expressed here. While you may be correct it isn't the editor's place to be passing judgement in a wikipedia article.

More comments about this section are below.

References

I can't really tell how you are formatting the references. Are these book titles? Are they articles in a magazine? What are the list of four references after Ref #21? This needs to be overhauled to conform with WP:CITE.
Websites should use a {{cite web}} template and include title, publisher and accessdate at least.
Books should use a {{cite book}} template and include title, author, date, publisher, location, isbn, and url and accessdate (if an on-line copy is available).
Ref 11 is to another Wikipedia article, this is inappropriate as the encyclopedia cannot site itself as a reference. See WP:VERIFY for thoughts on using credible sources.

Overall

The article is off to a good start, there is a lot of quality content that will add to the encyclopedia. The work now is to organize it and package it better. Here are some suggestions:
Why all the Hindi (is it Hindi, if not please forgive my ignorance) script? This is an English Wikipedia. You must assume the readers do not read Hindi. There can be call for a specific word to have the Hindi translation for clarification, but to have so many words translated just isn't necessary, and then the quotes. The quotes in Hindi need to be translated into English. Leave out the Hindi altogether.
I can't speak to the issues with factual accuracy but I can tell you that organizing your references so that they are consistent with understandable will help.
You use several words like "lakh", "ghats", and "Onam". To the novice these words are confusing and with no explanation I'm left not understanding what is being said.
You seem to be trying to push the idea that the Namadhari naik were a martial people. This concept is sprinkled throughout the article's sections. Is this in dispute? Once the point is made I don't think it needs to be brought up again.
Remember to fix the space before punctuation issue, it is prevalent throughout the article.
There are a lot of grammatical issues that need to be addressed. They are all small but when put together create a distraction for the readers.

This concludes my review. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you for your contributions to the project and keep up the good work. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 21:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]