Wikipedia:Peer review/Religion in India/archive1

Religion in India

RoI was massively expanded by Shahab, Dwaipayanc, and others when it was a INCOTW. I need comments about the article's structure, and how to keep the text comprehensive without making the article bloated. For example, do we need separate sections for each major religion? Should the "History" section be further subdivided and elaborated upon? We don't have any "Religion in X" FA articles to guide us, and the talk page comments and todo list have been (IMO) mostly acted upon. So far, following the example of Climate of India, I've copyedited most of the article, added refs, and did some expansion work. Please let us know other work is needed. Thanks. Saravask 19:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SpecialWindler

Some suggestions

In the "Statistics" section, can the the lists/tables be converted into text, it is better.
The History section dosen't really need to be expanded, but it may be good to add religion in X as you have stated
The External links section has headings, they don't really need these
Can elaborate more on the "riots" section, there seems to have been a few riots
you could elaborate on "eductation" to
There are two pictures in the top right hand corner, there only needs to be one, the other can move into the article.

Thats a quick review SpecialWindler 09:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the advice. I expanded the "Conflicts" section (doubled its size and added refs) per your request and made some lesser and unrelated changes to the "Education" section, which I will expand when I find other instances of curriculum-doctoring. For now, I must disagree with most of your comments on formatting (like the need to convert "Statistics" into prose or the need to have only one pic accompanying the lead (see Climate of India, which is FA). For example, I think prosifying the "Statistics" tables would make the resulting text horrendously boring and number-heavy, while tabular form allows people to use class="sortable wikitable" to sort, compare, and browse through the numbers quickly). But I'm willing to wait to see whether others agree with the rest of your comments, allowing us to see where the consensus lies.

For now, though, I need to suspend this for a week or two due to personal time constraints. Feel free to keep this watchlisted in order to get a heads-up when this PR goes live again. Thanks again for your help. Saravask 13:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]