Wikipedia:Peer review/Matrikas/archive1

Matrikas
I've listed this article for peer review because it looks like a solid B class article that could use some input to take it to the next level.

Thanks,

TheRingess (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions below. Thanks, APR t 03:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

automated peer review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Person, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * added Hindu deity infobox.--Redtigerxyz 13:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 03:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading  ==Magellan's journey== , use  ==Journey== .[?]
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), avoid capitalizing words in section headings unless they are proper nouns or the first word of the heading.[?]
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Review by Jeff

 * The prose on this needs some work. When I read this I feel like I'm not getting enough context to understand what is being described. I'll use an analogy to show what I mean:
 * Imagine you ask me "What is a coin?"
 * If I respond "A coin is something people throw into a fountain in order to make a wish" You might get confused, because I didn't describe it well, even though the statement is true. Instead, I could say:
 * "A coin is a small, metal object in the shape of a disc issued by a government as a form of currency. Many people carry coins around with them in order to buy things, and some people believe that throwing a coin into a fountain will make a wish come true." This way, we explain what it is, give it context so people can understand it, and tell something about it.
 * Some examples of passages with no context to understand what they mean include:
 * "Yoginis are described as belonging to or born from one or other Matrikas"
 * "Their earliest clear description appear in some layers of the Mahabharata, (date to 1st century AD) [8], which in turn is rooted in the group of seven females depicted"
 * "Some scholars believe that Matrikas were known during the Vedic period"
 * I also have trouble figuring out what culture/region/country this belongs to. State this in the first sentence of the article.
 * Let me know if you need further help. Jeff Dahl 22:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are some relevant quotes from the perfect article, areas this article needs to work on:
 * starts with a clear description of the subject; the lead introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excessive detail.


 * is understandable; it is clearly expressed for both experts and non-experts in appropriate detail, and thoroughly explores and explains the subject.


 * is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles.


 * is clear; it is written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, using logical structure, and plain, clear prose; it is free of redundant language.
 * is engaging; the language is descriptive and has an interesting, encyclopedic tone. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 21:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)