Wikipedia:Peer review/India House/archive1

India House

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I wish to have this article peer review for language, spelling, NPOV, structure and scope and improve this, as far a possible, to FA status since I wish to nominate it once review is done.

Thanks, rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Devnagari script India House should have a choti ee matra not the badi eee. KnowledgeHegemony' Part2 10:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now removed.KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 08:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a breif flutter through and noted a few problems which could be adressed; there are very few sources cited in the introduction to the article, I've selected some of the most prominent; the article needs some more images, in order to break up the voume of text and provide some information; the sources you cite do not provide specific evidence, which they should, especially considering they are web links. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the citation issue, I have put down vonPochammer as a reference, but what he actually says is that the house became a "point of support" The problem is I synthesised that from both what is widely known, as well as some of the other info (see eg, indoctrination of previously non-activist Indian students in the Impact section) through the article. I dont know if this is acceptable. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the referencing issue, I have to point out most (except one if I am correct) of the references I have given are books, not websites as you say. However, if you see or feel that the evidence does not support what has been written, I will reword or find a better reference. Please let me know. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 00:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem I have with the references is that they are not specific; a person looking to further their knowledge in this subject, and seeking out the books you mention, would have to search through the entire book to find the cited bits of information. Put the comment from which you have based the information in ' marks after the reference. If you unsure what I mean look at the references of my own article Prehistoric medicine. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you are saying. But I think the references from Popplewell, Hopkirk and Owen (but mainly Popplewell) do talk about in some detail about the organisation, but most writers focus on the impact and the future impact. I wished to avoid any traces of original research, but I am sure most of the references I have given will satisfy a brief over view, what I have done is piece together the scattered facts. I dont know if this helps. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but should "the house" be referred to as "the House"? KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 15:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also added further reading. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]