Talk:Mangalorean Catholics/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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 Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive507. Vandalism should never be treated seriously. Kensplanet TC 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 TC 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 TC 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 TC 06:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Friendly suggestions
These have no bearing on weather the article passes GA or not, just my comments and advise for improving the article... Dave (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * There's no Original research involved here. I have modified and added the names of Historians. Kensplanet <b style="color:black;">T</b><b style="color:green;">C</b> 15:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * 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

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)