![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Economy of ancient Tamil country received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | A fact from Economy of ancient Tamil country appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 July 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
I have requested a peer-review at the India peer-review page and also at the General peer-review page. Please provide any feedback in one of those pages. Lotlil 02:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I am confused here. Primary sources are not considered sources, I don't believe, per WP:V and WP:RS. Also, having such a long section on sources at the beginning detracts from the subject of your article. Since the sources article is so long, it almost suggests that there should be a sub article. There is a link in the article (I can't find it now!) that goes to something-something-poetry (or maybe it was literature). Anyway, is this an article on literature or on history? Don't get distressed at my comments, because if you do go for FAC, it is a grueling and humbling process! (They will be very critical.) I am not sure what you mean by "Tamil country". Is there not a more specific name? Do you mean country as in "city vs. country", or do you mean country as in "nation". I have not heard that term before. Is that a commonly used term? The link to Tamil people is not very helpful because it makes Tamil seem multinational, not necessarily related to a specific area of India. Maybe you can straighten me out here. Regards, -- Mattisse 20:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) I think the sources section is way too long and contains general information like this:
Among literary sources in other languages, the most informative ones are Greek and Roman accounts of the maritime trade between the Roman empire and the kingdoms of Tamilakam. Strabo and Pliny give the details of the trade route between the Red Sea coast and the western coast of South India. Strabo (ca. 1st century BCE) mentions the embassies sent by the Pandyas to the court of Augustus, along with a description of the ambassadors. Pliny (ca. 77 CE) talks about the different items imported by the Romans from India and complains about the financial drain caused by them. He also refers to many Tamil ports in his work The Natural History. The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (c. 60 - 100 CE) an anonymous work, gives an elaborate description of the Tamil country and the riches of a 'Pandian Kingdom'.
Also, this paragraph is not sourced. We have to take your word for it. A way of including this is describe some specific details that Pliny or Strabo give and then source the material, e.g. what book etc. Just saying Pliny said this or that won't fly. Look at Orion (mythology) which uses old sources. The editor fought with FAC but finally changed the way he referenced material.
I have removed some POV. There is a very strange reference regarding agriculture: "They live who live to plough and eat; The rest behind them bow and eat.” It is a reference to the following sentence: "Agriculture was the main occupation of the ancient Tamils and the most respected." How does this explain that agriculture was the main occupation and the most respected?
The tone is good except for a few statements and some words sound incorrect for what I think you mean. Calling agriculture a vocation -- a calling like to priesthood -- was that the way agriculture was? A person either was inspired to farm or became something else instead? Also, saying the government had a tax scheme makes them sound like shady crooks scheming rather than administrators implementing a tax structure, unless you mean the goverment was on the crooked side. The lead is too short right now and does not summarize the article. Read WP:LEAD. The lead is supposed to summarize the whole article, so you have to include summary statements about sources and every other major topic you cover.
The article needs to be organized more tightly so that everything to do with one topic is together in one place, rather than scattered through the article.
Those are the things I can think of right now. I do want to mention that if you want to take it to FAC, there needs to be a lead person, you perhaps. The FAC will only deal with one person in their review and they expect replies from only on person. Regards, -- Mattisse 14:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
At one point you have seven (7) footnotes. The FAC editors will go through the roof! -- Mattisse 00:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
So you are saying that working in agriculture was more respected than being a military leader, a brahmin teacher, writer, poet, king, warrior, temple priest, diamond merchant etc.? -- Mattisse 00:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you look at what I have done so far and decide whether you want me to continue. Regards, Mattisse 14:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Have you read Wikipedia:Featured article criteria? Also, the article must comply with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Summary style. Regards, -- Mattisse 14:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the sources section, I think you should remove most of it. Can you find other articles that deal with the economy of an ancient civilization to model after? Or find India articles on ancient civilizations and see how they deal with the sources issue? I'll look around and see what I can find. The way it is now it dominates the article as it is by far the largest section in the article. -- Mattisse 16:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
There is some article (which at this moment I cannot find) that explains about radio-carbon dating and so forth. Sources of ancient Tamil history while not an excellent article, does point out the perils of taking literature literally -- that literature is fanciful and presents an ideal world. It is the use of radio-carbon dating that has opened the world to archaeology which is more scientific and reliable. The problem is that for generations, literature was relied on for information about ancient cultures, but in the last twenty years there has been very important scientific breakthroughs. -- Mattisse 17:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) It depends when it was written—before or after the newer methods were discovered. But you do what you want. It is your article. -- Mattisse 19:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
En dashes, not hyphens, for page and year ranges. No dots at the end of captions that are not complete sentences. Please audit for overlinking, especially common words and repetitions (looks messy and dilutes the important links). The huge runs of references (eight in a row) are just over the top: can you ration them? Tony 08:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
"The Tamils cultivated paddy, sugarcane..." Maybe I'm being finicky, but, since when is "paddy" a crop? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Economy of ancient Tamil country received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | A fact from Economy of ancient Tamil country appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 July 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
I have requested a peer-review at the India peer-review page and also at the General peer-review page. Please provide any feedback in one of those pages. Lotlil 02:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I am confused here. Primary sources are not considered sources, I don't believe, per WP:V and WP:RS. Also, having such a long section on sources at the beginning detracts from the subject of your article. Since the sources article is so long, it almost suggests that there should be a sub article. There is a link in the article (I can't find it now!) that goes to something-something-poetry (or maybe it was literature). Anyway, is this an article on literature or on history? Don't get distressed at my comments, because if you do go for FAC, it is a grueling and humbling process! (They will be very critical.) I am not sure what you mean by "Tamil country". Is there not a more specific name? Do you mean country as in "city vs. country", or do you mean country as in "nation". I have not heard that term before. Is that a commonly used term? The link to Tamil people is not very helpful because it makes Tamil seem multinational, not necessarily related to a specific area of India. Maybe you can straighten me out here. Regards, -- Mattisse 20:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) I think the sources section is way too long and contains general information like this:
Among literary sources in other languages, the most informative ones are Greek and Roman accounts of the maritime trade between the Roman empire and the kingdoms of Tamilakam. Strabo and Pliny give the details of the trade route between the Red Sea coast and the western coast of South India. Strabo (ca. 1st century BCE) mentions the embassies sent by the Pandyas to the court of Augustus, along with a description of the ambassadors. Pliny (ca. 77 CE) talks about the different items imported by the Romans from India and complains about the financial drain caused by them. He also refers to many Tamil ports in his work The Natural History. The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (c. 60 - 100 CE) an anonymous work, gives an elaborate description of the Tamil country and the riches of a 'Pandian Kingdom'.
Also, this paragraph is not sourced. We have to take your word for it. A way of including this is describe some specific details that Pliny or Strabo give and then source the material, e.g. what book etc. Just saying Pliny said this or that won't fly. Look at Orion (mythology) which uses old sources. The editor fought with FAC but finally changed the way he referenced material.
I have removed some POV. There is a very strange reference regarding agriculture: "They live who live to plough and eat; The rest behind them bow and eat.” It is a reference to the following sentence: "Agriculture was the main occupation of the ancient Tamils and the most respected." How does this explain that agriculture was the main occupation and the most respected?
The tone is good except for a few statements and some words sound incorrect for what I think you mean. Calling agriculture a vocation -- a calling like to priesthood -- was that the way agriculture was? A person either was inspired to farm or became something else instead? Also, saying the government had a tax scheme makes them sound like shady crooks scheming rather than administrators implementing a tax structure, unless you mean the goverment was on the crooked side. The lead is too short right now and does not summarize the article. Read WP:LEAD. The lead is supposed to summarize the whole article, so you have to include summary statements about sources and every other major topic you cover.
The article needs to be organized more tightly so that everything to do with one topic is together in one place, rather than scattered through the article.
Those are the things I can think of right now. I do want to mention that if you want to take it to FAC, there needs to be a lead person, you perhaps. The FAC will only deal with one person in their review and they expect replies from only on person. Regards, -- Mattisse 14:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
At one point you have seven (7) footnotes. The FAC editors will go through the roof! -- Mattisse 00:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
So you are saying that working in agriculture was more respected than being a military leader, a brahmin teacher, writer, poet, king, warrior, temple priest, diamond merchant etc.? -- Mattisse 00:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you look at what I have done so far and decide whether you want me to continue. Regards, Mattisse 14:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Have you read Wikipedia:Featured article criteria? Also, the article must comply with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Summary style. Regards, -- Mattisse 14:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the sources section, I think you should remove most of it. Can you find other articles that deal with the economy of an ancient civilization to model after? Or find India articles on ancient civilizations and see how they deal with the sources issue? I'll look around and see what I can find. The way it is now it dominates the article as it is by far the largest section in the article. -- Mattisse 16:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
There is some article (which at this moment I cannot find) that explains about radio-carbon dating and so forth. Sources of ancient Tamil history while not an excellent article, does point out the perils of taking literature literally -- that literature is fanciful and presents an ideal world. It is the use of radio-carbon dating that has opened the world to archaeology which is more scientific and reliable. The problem is that for generations, literature was relied on for information about ancient cultures, but in the last twenty years there has been very important scientific breakthroughs. -- Mattisse 17:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) It depends when it was written—before or after the newer methods were discovered. But you do what you want. It is your article. -- Mattisse 19:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
En dashes, not hyphens, for page and year ranges. No dots at the end of captions that are not complete sentences. Please audit for overlinking, especially common words and repetitions (looks messy and dilutes the important links). The huge runs of references (eight in a row) are just over the top: can you ration them? Tony 08:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
"The Tamils cultivated paddy, sugarcane..." Maybe I'm being finicky, but, since when is "paddy" a crop? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)