Talk:Mangalorean Catholics/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Pre-review questions

Hello, My name is Dave. I have volunteered to review this article. I did so as I saw this has been in the queue for a while and thought this would be a good chance to learn. I know very little about Indian subcultures or the Roman Catholic church. I would still very much like to review this article, however I have some concerns that may force me to fail the Good Article Nomination outright. Can someone who has followed this article please address the following:

1. There was move-warring on this page as recent as 6 days ago. While the article seems relatively stable for the last 6 days, has this dispute been resolved to the point that there is no danger of the move war reoccuring? Frankly, I find this juvenile (as are most move wars). There is no reason why the one article title can't re-direct to the other, with the resulting page listing both titles.

   There was no dispute at all. An editor just moved the article without discussing and without any reason or a silly reason. Can be considered Page Move vandalism. I even booked the User Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive507#Mangalorean Catholics. Vandalism should never be treated seriously. Kensplanet^T_C 15:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Are both sides in agreement that the current title is acceptable? Dave (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Kensplanet^T_C 06:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

1. This very page had a review of sorts, but was blanked, with no explanation. What happened here?

   The review was done by an User, who happens to be a significant contributor of the article. As per GA rules, we cannot have significant contributors reviewing the article. They definitely will pass the article. He was new and didn't know this rule. The review had to be blanked, because it was invalid. Kensplanet^T_C 15:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Accepted. In the future, I would suggest leaving a message stating up front this happened, as the situation looked very suspicious. The ideal situation would be for the reviewer and nominator to leave a note agreeing that another reviewer is required, as the original reviewer was unaware of procedure.Dave (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I myself didn't know. Will surely do it next time. Kensplanet^T_C 06:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Regards, Dave (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I will place the nomination on hold. This is mostly a good article, however some minor issues, most important is to fix the dead links. Once fixed, I'll happily pass this article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   • "But when they betrayed Hyder, he directed his anger toward the Mangalorean Catholics, since they had been converted to Christianity by the Portuguese." Is "they" referring to English or Portuguese?
   • Same for "Their captivity at Srirangapatna, which began on 24 February 1784 and ended on 4 May 1799, remains the most disconsolate memory in their history." The second "their" is OK, provided the first is explained. The WP:Lead also uses the word their a few to many times. • Their Mangalore tiles and contributions to Konkani literature are well known. This statement contains WP:Peacock terms and should be re-written.
   I have copyedited the Lead. In case you would like more modifications, Please tell me.
   *It's ok now Dave (talk) 06:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Some sentences could use references at the end of them (even if it's repeating a reference for another sentence in the same paragraph. Specifically, I'm referring to the last paragraph of "Migration era" section.
   Added at references at some places in that section

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Sources look reliable. Some minor concerns with the site RichardCrasta.com, but I think is ok. However, their are two dead links on this page [1]. These should be fixed, either find an archive of this citation or find a new reference. Dave (talk) 06:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
   Modern literature is diverse and includes themes such as Indian Politics in books like What Ails the Socialists by George Fernandes, historical awakening, in books such as Sarasvati's Children: A History of the Mangalorean Christians by Alan Machado Prabhu, and sexual desires, in The Revised Kama Sutra: A Novel of Colonialism and Desire by Richard Crasta - RichardCrasta.Com is used to cite the claim in Bold. We cannot have any better source that the author Richard Crasta's own website which has lots and lots of reliable details about his book The Revised Kama Sutra: A Novel of Colonialism. Great source for those interested in Further reading. Maybe source not reliable for other claims; but surely reliable for his own book.
   Dead link which appears in External links section removed.
   The next dead REF was the Page of the book which was availaible online. The Citation stays since the page will always be present in the book. Kensplanet^T_C 06:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   I am a little concerned about the Notable People, I've seen sections like this explode into a mess. However, in the current state this is ok.
   It guarantee you it won't exceed. We will stick to only 10 people most notable. It is required to recognize the community, which many people may not know.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   See above sections, stability is a concern. Article will not necessarily fail because of the move war, but some assurance needs to be given that the issue is resolved before this can pass.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images have valid free use or fair use tags. However as a friendly suggestion, I would suggest looking at File:JamalabadFortPassage.jpg where the image has been tagged to categorization issues. - Done

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article is very well written. Only some minor changes need to be made. Fix them and I'll happily promote this article.

Friendly suggestions

These have no bearing on weather the article passes GA or not, just my comments and advise for improving the article...

• There are some sections that IMO border on WP:OR and I would advise to reword. For example "A few of them might have migrated to South Canara.[15] But no concrete evidence has yet been found that there were any permanent settlements of Christians in South Canara before the 16th century." In this case, these statements are sourced, so it is ok to say them. However, the way they are written could imply they are original research. For example, I'd change to change the st, "Historian X believes a few of them may have migrated" and "Historian X has found no evidence that their were permanent settlements" etc.

Dave (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no Original research involved here. I have modified and added the names of Historians. Kensplanet^T_C 15:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• There are some WP:Peacock terms, such as "skilled cultivators"
  • I don't think this is peacock. They were very much skilled in agriculture as conpared to any farmers that time.
    • Accepted.Dave (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• The Sultan of Bijapur attacked Goa in 1571 and ended Portuguese influence in Goa. -> maybe say "influence in the region". I'd avoid using the same word twice in a sentence.
  • Done
• "New Testament Biblical canons" I would suggest to de-link Biblical. The reason is that per WP:LINK, two consecutive words should not link to different articles, to avoid confusing people who may think it is one link. However, I'm a little confused. While the MOS says this, I see this guideline routinely ignored, including on many Featured Articles and even articles featured on the main page. So I won't hold this against you if you keep the links. =-) Dave (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done
• "In the olden days" – Be more specific, if you can, olden days is 50 years ago, 200 years ago???
  • Done

I have finished my review. A mostly well written article, only some minor changes. Congratulations on a job well done, I can tell the contributors have worked hard on this article.Dave (talk) 06:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Passing GA

With the improvements I now feel this article passes the GA criteria. I would caution all editors to remember the policies on Article Ownership and assume good faith. There are some comments above that do concern me, and I think a re-read of these policies may be in order. Dave (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)