Wikipedia:Peer review/Deshastha Brahmin/archive2

Deshastha Brahmin
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…
 * Previous peer review

...the article failed a GA review. Reviewer asked that it be thoroughly reviewed again before nomination. We've made all of the fixes per the GA review. Once the peer review is done, we will nominate for GA again.

Thanks, Zuggernaut (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I don't know if I can be of much help or not.


 * I find myself struggling to understand the basic concepts because I'm almost totally unfamiliar with the caste system as well as many other aspects of life in India. The table in the "Classification" section, for example, is almost without meaning for me. To understand it, I would need to look up "Rig Veda", "Yajur Veda", "Recension", "Shukla (White)", "Krishna (Black)", "Śākalya", and so on. I wonder if the article could be revised with a broader audience in mind. Here are some other comments and suggestions.


 * ✅ - provided explanation of the Vedas, recension and branches. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The tools above find one dead url in the citations and seven links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.


 * ✅ - fixed all dead/disambiguation links. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead
 * "The word Deshastha" - Italicize "Deshastha" for consistency within the sentence?
 * ✅ Zuggernaut (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Terms like 8th century need a no-break code to hold the parts together on line-break. I fixed one, 13th century, but you should fix them all. WP:NBSP has details.


 * ✅ Zuggernaut (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "The hitherto ritually, socio-economically and Brahminically "inferior" Konkanastha, achieved parity with the Deshasthas in the nepotistic era that followed the passing of the seat of the Peshwa in Konkanastha hands in 1713." - This is quite a mouthful and will probably puzzle many foreign readers. The comma after "Konkanastha" should be removed. Is "Brahminically" a real word? Should "in Konkanastha" hands be "into Konkanashta hands"?


 * ✅ - Brahminical is an adjective per this dictionary - Zuggernaut (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "During this era, the Konkanastha unleashed social warfare on the Deshasthas, with at least one recorded incident of the Peshwas ruining and disgracing a reputed Deshastha Brahmin from Wai." - Two problems: (1) It's hard to imagine that one incident amounts to warfare; (2) "at least" is vague.


 * ✅ Used specific phrasing to eliminate ambiguity. Removed "at least". Zuggernaut (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Deshastha Brahmins constitute 60 percent of the total Brahmin population in Maharahstra, which itself stands at four percent of the population of Maharashtra." - Suggestion: "Brahmins constitute 4 percent of the population of Maharahstra, and 60 percent of them are Deshastha Brahmins."
 * ✅ Zuggernaut (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Classification
 * To make this more understandable to a foreign reader, would it be possible to include a paragraph that explains the caste system in India? Who does it include? What are the main categories? Is it possible to change category? Does one category have an advantage over another; that is to say, if someone could choose any category, which would be most desirable?


 * ✅ Zuggernaut (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Castes claiming to be Deshasthas
 * "Golak or Govardhan are considered degraded" - Considered by whom?


 * ✅ Zuggernaut (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "The caste headman is generally someone with a smattering of Sanskrit and is called a Vedia. They are the earliest settlers in and around Nasik." - Past tense; i.e. "was generally someone" and "was called" and "they were"? Also, can someone be "smattered with Sanskrit"?


 * ✅ - changed to past tense. Smattering is used correctly. Here's a dictionary entry from a random dictionary. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "The Randa Golaks are similar to the Kunda Golak in their origin, with the difference in that their first female parents were Brahmin widows." - Confused syntax. People only have one set of parents. I think you must mean that all of the Randa Golak people are considered illegitimate by (somebody, not sure whom) because they are thought to have descended from the offspring of a Brahmin widow.


 * ✅ - rephrased. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * All of this section seems highly POV-ish. The head, "Castes claiming to be Deshasthas" suggests that someone denies this claim. But who is that arbiter, and why is that arbiter's claim any more valid than the opposite claim?

Demographics
 * "The Brahmin caste constitutes four percent of the total population in Maharashtra." - Who else lives in Maharashtra? Who are the other 96 percent?


 * ✅ Zuggernaut (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

History
 * As the original Brahmins of Maharashtra, the Deshasthas have been held in the greatest esteem and have considered themselves superior to other Brahmins." - Who holds them in the greatest esteem?


 * ✅ - source doesn't say who, it just says they've been held in greatest esteem. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "The Deshasthas are a progressive community and some of the them have taken to white collar jobs." - Who says they are progressive? I'm not suggesting that they aren't, just trying to point out that this seems to present a Deshastha point of view. Are there any other views that have been published by reliable sources?
 * ✅ - Anthropological Survey of India says so -

Images
 * File:Dr. Hedgevar.jpg is a 50 kilobyte image licensed as "own work" but appears to be a scan rather than a photograph. "Own work" usually means something like "I took this photograph with my camera". However, a scan of someone else's work does not qualify as "own work". The "source" part of the image description summary should name the original source and either link to it or give information sufficient for a reader to verify the license claims.


 * ✅ -- this one looks like a hand made portrait/picture rather than a photograph. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Tantiatope.jpg. The image description page needs to specify where this image came from. What is the original source? When was it published? If the photographer's name is known, that should be included too.
 * This particular image is sourced from Colombia University's website (info I have added to the image) and that was originally from NNDB. The link . The creator of the work is not specified but since it was originally created almost 150 years ago it would be the public domain. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ - marked done assuming Johnxxx9's answer suffices. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Madhava Rao.jpg. The image description page needs to specify the original source. The image appears to be a scan, but a scan of what?


 * ❌ - uploader does not wish to participate in providing the information ...will remove if GA reviewer asks to do so. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Deshastha Girls.jpg has been licensed as CC-by-SA 2.0, but it does not appear to be a photograph taken by the uploader who added the license. If the image is not the uploader's own work (a photograph he or she created), then the uploader can't arbitrarily license the image as CC-by-SA 2.0. The uploader seems to be aware of the difficulty and adds language usually associated with a fair-use claim. This won't do.


 * ✅ pictures have been removed. Will try to persuade uploader to work on this so we can have pictures back. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not check the license pages of all of the images. I'm hoping the above examples will suffice.


 * ✅ removed a few others which fell in the File:Deshastha Girls.jpg category. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

References
 * The abbreviation for a single page is p. Thus "pp. 59." in citation 1 should be changed to "p. 59". Ditto for all the similar constructions.




 * It's helpful to provide an OCLC number for books such as Hindu Castes and Sects with no ISBNs. You can usually find the OCLCs via WorldCat.


 * ✅ (provided ISBNs and/or URLs for almost all references)


 * Citation 7 is incomplete. Citation 8 lacks an author. The Indian Express in citation 83 should appear in italics. The all-caps part of citation 86 should appear in title case (Wikipedia house style) as Press Trust of India. I noticed these things on a quick read-through, but I suspect there are more small things that need to be fixed to conform to the Manual of Style. A careful proofing of the citations would be a good idea.



I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page.