Talk:Parakramabahu I

Rating
While helping you to check on the reference formatting, I had a chance to read the article. I found it very well written, comprehensive and impressively referenced; hence the B rating. Why don't you polish it a bit and submit it as a Good Article? Jeffpw 13:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoops, I mistyped. It should be B until it is completed. Sorry bout that. Jeffpw 13:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. You've worked really hard on this article, and it shows! I have reclassed it as GA. I have also made some minor spelling corrections (Thank God Mozilla has automatic spell check) and removed one POV statement. In "Preparations for War", you wrote, "which seems an exaggeration". That seems POV and/or original research to me, so I removed it. Feel free to put it back in, but I think others will qustion statements like that, too.

I also suggest you add one or two more pictures. You have a lot, but I notice that a couple times there is only text on the screen, and I think another 2 images would give it an important boost.

You can submit this to the Wiki Biography Project for a peer review here, but at this point I would suggest you just nominate it as a Featured Article. I think it has a great shot at that, and even if it is not successful on its first try, you will get valuable suggestions from very tough critics. You can do that here.

Good luck to you, and please let me know if I can further assist you. Jeffpw 20:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Good article?
I don't find the nomination or listing at WP:GA or WP:GAC; can someone please clarify which section it is in? Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 23:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Doc originally asked me to assess this as part of the biography project (I have assessed several articles there). I originally gave it a B rating, then after he wrote to me that he had completed it, I reread it and assessed it as GA. If I did not follow protocol, please accept my apologies. I wasn't aware that it needed to be nominated for GA. I thought it could be assessed that way. Hope this clears up any confusion. Jeffpw 23:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Have a look at WP:WIAGA and WP:GAC. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 23:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Jeff, sorry for the confusion, but Sandy's right, the only 2 grades on our assessment scale that cannot be given by us are GA and FA. Thanks for all your hard work though! --plange 23:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed in accordance with Wiki protocol. Sorry for the confusion. Jeffpw 10:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fact tags
Lead does need a citation. If not then it would be because people understand that lead should be expanded in the body and a source should be provided there. However, this article does not have a citation at the body for that statement either. So please go ahead and find the citation. Thanks Watchdogb 18:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to cite the intro. Current version of WP:LEAD does not states that since admins were edit waring regarding the Citations section of it and one of them protected the wrong version. So wait until admins resolve the disputes there. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  19:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are confusing yourself here. Anything that is protected is the "wrong" version. In this article the body does not have a citation for that either. Watchdogb 19:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)\


 * Read the artidcle


 *  On this occasion however the Sri Lankan help came too late. By the time Parâkramabâhu's general Lankapura arrived in Pandya Nadu, Kulasekhara had captured the capital Madhurai and killed King Parakrama's wife and children. His son Prince Virapandu however had managed to escape. Rather than head for Madhurai, Lankapura landed in the vicinity of Ramanathapuram and captured the city of Rameswaran, which remained in Sri Lankan hands for the next thirty years or so. Here they built a fortress called Parakramapura. In this early phase of the war they fought Kulasekhara on several occasions, eventually laying siege to him in Madhurai and seizing the city. Virapandu was restored to power, but apparently only as a puppet, as the Sri Lankan army under Lankapura remained in Madhurai and continued to engage the Chola across south India. 


 * See the citation?-- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 19:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I still do not see a citation for the comment in the lead section. This citation you are pointing out to is a whole different case. Even if it was the same thing it has citation to only one incident which does not cite the statement in lead section. Watchdogb 00:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

On hold--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * I have corrected some problems, but there was no response from the nominator, though a note was left on his talk. No improvements in Article since review. I would have loved to promote this only if these problems were resolved. This article is very very close to GA. I request the editors to make the minor above, renominate and leave a note on my talk so i can promote the article. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reason to use â instead of ā?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Naming_and_transliteration would recommend IAST unless primary sources use sth else. IAST uses ā for long /a:/ and not â Jasy jatere (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. The disambiguator is unnecessary and the naming conventions apply to European monarchs that have a common name stock. The google searches below are not restricted to reliable sources: such searches show over 6000 for "Parakramabahu I", 9 for "Parakramabahu I of Polonnaruwa". DrKiernan (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Parakramabahu I of Polonnaruwa → Parakramabahu I – As per WP:Precise  PHEONIX  TER  18:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see why you want to move it but Parakramabahu I of Polonnaruwa is a more common name than Parakramabahu I and also keeps to proper naming conventions in line with all other monarch articles.--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest to change names of all monarch article titles to reflect the name not the kingdom. Every other biography article has the name of the character if it is precise enough. eg - Elizabeth II. I've found only one reference using the name Parakramabahu I of Polonnaruwa through the search while many had Parakramabahu I or just King Parakramabahu.  PHEONIX  TER  18:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edits
The reasons I removed that information was: WP:INDICSCRIPTS; then we are left with his name three times in a row. (Also, his name is not correct in Sinhalese, as Sinhalese has no long vowels: Mahā Parākaramabāhu is not Sinhalese, it's either Pali or a Prakrit.) Do we really need all that cruft at the beginning of the article? I'm removing the Indic scripts again (and only those right now) because that policy is crystal clear. Ogress smash! 03:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait also I removed " " because we seriously need to cite his name in the lede? That's super overkill. Ogress smash!  03:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing
This article is infact impressively done but largely contains original research. I put up some new sources for previous content. Maybe remove the Culawamsa sources because its an primary source: Bibliography of Sri Lanka. Hopefully there are secondary sources that can be better. Kommune12 (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)