Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sri Lankan Tamil people/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Moni3 20:30, 3 October 2008 [1].

Sri Lankan Tamil people[edit]

Nominator(s): –Taprobanus (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
previous FAC (15:53, 29 August 2008)


The article was nominated previously and requested to undergo complete copy edit, which it has. It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, stable, and follows style guidelines. Taprobanus (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Article is comprehensive, well referenced and backed up by brilliant pictures. I do have a few concerns however:
  • "Most modern Sri Lankan Tamils descend from the former Jaffna Kingdom in the north and Vannimai chieftaincies from the east." - north and east of where? I didn't know when I first read this.
  • "They constitute a majority in the Northern Province, live in significant numbers in the Eastern Province, and are in the minority throughout the rest of the country." - I think "but" would be better than "and" in in the Eastern Province, and are in the minority
I made it north of the island Taprobanus (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is little scholarly consensus over the presence of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, also known as Eelam in early Tamil literature, prior to the medieval Chola period (circa 10th century CE)." - this is a little hard to read, I think the commas would be better if replaced with em dashes — — — to help break it up and make it easier to read.
  • "Sri Lankan Tamils are culturally and linguistically distinct from the other two Tamil-speaking minorities in Sri Lanka, the Indian Tamils and the Muslims." "There are two groups of Tamils in Sri Lanka: the Sri Lankan Tamils and the Indian Tamils." In the intro you say there are three groups of Tamils, yet later on you say there are only two. Have I misunderstood something here?
Yes there are three distinct groups of Tamil speaking communities in Sri Lanka, two of them identify as Tamils (with their respective hyphens) and the third does not identify it as Tamils simply as Muslims, which is ethno-religious identity. Taprobanus (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from these minor things I must completement you for this, it's a great article.--Serviam (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per the earlier nomination. It was the prose that was the real concern in the earlier nomination and that must have improved considerably by now. Hope the article closes favorably this time.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The infobox pic will need to be replaced - i just nominated the component image Image:Coomaraswamy01.jpg for deletion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to update the pic with less the Ananda K. Coomaraswamy pic. Hope it works 99.247.129.133 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Spot-check of a subsection at random:

  • "The indigenous Veddhas are physically related to Dravidian language-speaking tribal people in South India and early populations of Southeast Asia, although they no longer speak their native languages."—"Dravidian language-speaking"—eeuuw. Pipe to "Dravidian-speaking" please. "early populations of Southeast Asia"—it's just idiom to use "in". I don't get the logical connection of "although".
  • "centuries before the Christian era"—why is christianity a benchmark? Cultural subservience? We probably have to live with the BCE common era, with it's arm's distance relationship to the christian era, but this example left me wondering whether christianity spread to Sri Lanka early on.
  • "Settlements of people culturally similar to those of present-day Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu in modern India were excavated at megalithic burial sites at Pomparippu on the west coast and in Kathiraveli on the east coast of the island, villages established between the 5th century BCE and 2nd century CE.[16][17]" Hog of a sentence; can you split it?
  • "were dated by archeologists to 10th century BCE"—"the" is missing. Another instance later in the subsection.
  • "occur at least around 9th or 10th century BCE"—what does "at least" mean here? "As early as"? "During those centuries and probably others too"?

Oppose. This strongly suggests that the whole text has improved insufficiently from its parlous state in the previous FAC to warrant promotion this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 04:52, October 2, 2008

  • Question Could you help me? I see this quote and cte.. the first assertion is clearly rflect in the source, but i cannot find the second: "This was opposed by S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, the leader of Tamil nationalist Federal Party, and most Tamil people.[ http://www.uthr.org/BP/volume1/Chapter1.htm "Missed Opportunities and the Loss of Democracy: The Disfranchisement of Indian Tamils: 1948-49"]... where does the source refer to "most Tamil people"? In fact, the text I see says "What was surprising, however, was that almost all of the Tamil elite representing the Ceylon Tamils through both Mr. Senanayake's United National Party and the Tamil Congress, either voted for the bills or were not serious about opposing them." That would seem to contradict the assertion about "most Tamil people"... Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to reluctantly Oppose at this time. I'm really rooting for this article, but later parts of it left me quite confused after reading. As just one example, I still can't quite make out the paragraph beginning "Britain, having control of the whole island by 1815..." This is a Very Good Article, but not quite FA yet. Sorry. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else you may want to point out ? I have changed sentence in questionTaprobanus (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  • I did some copyediting, including some blind edits that ask for more detail.
  • As someone who writes about South Asian topics for a primarily English-speaking audience, surely you must know that many of us have very little familiarity with your subject. I found I require a lot of help in understanding many of the terms for groups of people. Please remember that your readers will need assistance in identifying these new words, understanding what they mean, and remembering them for the entire article. For instance, in this passage: They follow a caste system similar to the South Indian or Dravidian kinship system. The Eastern Tamil caste hierarchy is dominated by the Mukkuvar. The main feature of their society is the kuti system. Although the Tamil word kuti means a house or settlement, in eastern Sri Lanka it is related to matrimonial alliances. It refers to the exogamous matrilineal clans and is found amongst most caste groups; men do not remain members of the kuti of their birth, instead joining the wife's kuti upon marriage. Kuti also collectively own places of worship such as Hindu temples. Each caste contains a number of kutis, with varying names. Aside from castes with an internal kuti system, there are seventeen caste groups, called Ciraikutis, or imprisoned kutis, whose members were considered to be in captivity, confined to specific services such as washing, weaving, and toddy tapping. I don't know how the caste system in South India is unique (help me). I don't know who the Mukkuvar are - can I get a brief explanation to help me remember them? What are they known for? I have to understand kuti very quickly in order to understand and read beyond the word. Can you put it this way: "The main feature of their society is the kuti system, a unique caste hierarchy where members are related by matrimonial alliances..."?
  • It would make better sense to me to state how the first people arrived at Sri Lanka. The first sentence in Pre-historic period discusses Veddhas as if I, or other readers, know who they are. Walk us through how the island was populated, please. Step by step. Can you change that to state "The first inhabitants of Sri Lanka are believed to be the Veddhas..." and then go into a discussion of their culture?
  • I find it's easier to understand and follow the article if you discuss facts first, then evidence. For instance, These villages were established between the 5th century BCE and 2nd century CE is after information about archeological excavations. The fact that's most important is the settlement of villages and when they were settled. That sentence about archeology should be after the most important sentence. I found the same paragraph structure in Historic period. Try restructuring the article to move this way in a paragraph: Facts about people (where and when settled, attributes and characteristics), evidence that supports their history (including artifacts, works of art, and accomplishments), and observations by anthropologists, including quotes to describe peoples and societies.
  • Can you include a map identifying where these groups of people were located? That would help loads.
  • I moved the image placement because the article looked a bit sloppy on my browser. I just don't know what to do with that Sri Lankan Tamil People template, but the blocking of text between that and the image of the Koneswaram Hindu Temple looks bad.
  • Scartol told me never to start a sentence with "There" and I thought he was joking. How can you not start a sentence with "There"??? I hate it when other people are right. Only I should be right...
  • Difficult to understand: In 1949, the United National Party government, which included G. G. Ponnambalam, leader of the Tamil Congress, stripped the Indian Tamils of their citizenship Is the point of this sentence that the Indian Tamils were stripped of their citizenship or Ponnambalam was in the government? I think it's the citizenship thing. If so, please remove the information that detracts from that. If you want to place it elsewhere, that's fine, but I don't understand why these two issues are related.
  • In Society, what separates or makes these groups unique? Language? Culture? History? This should be the utmost top in describing how many different groups there are and what makes them different. Right now, it's language, and regional, I think. I can't tell. This should be the first sentence in the Society section: "Sri Lankan Tamil people are categorized into X groups based on (language?). Of these, dialect and other cultural attributes further separate inhabitants of the island into XX subgroups."
  • I know you've worked hard on this, but I am unable to move past the confusing text. I think the article needs a rewrite, and I'm willing to help you, but when I have to pick apart paragraphs like this, it doesn't appear to be ready for FAC. Anthropology and groups are very interesting to me. I've always been fascinated with different cultures. But the writing assumes the reader knows too much to be basic, it uses terms and concepts that are naturally elementary in Sri Lanka and completely foreign to other places. I can't understand the terms, and I have no context to draw upon for these things to make sense to me. You've lost me before I began, and I need too much help to get caught up to speed. I know that I can be fascinated by these people if you show me how. Let me know if you want assistance. --Moni3 (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images

Comment I would like to withdraw the nomination and work with Moni3 to improve it. Taprobanus (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sri_Lankan_Tamil_people/archive2&oldid=390563622"