Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parâkramabâhu I/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 16:32, 20 December 2007.

Parâkramabâhu I edit

previous FAC, peer review I, peer review II.

Failed initial FA nomination mainly due to manual of style issues. Extensive suggestions in the first peer review have been corrected, it has undergone major copy editing and the few suggestions from the second peer review have been incorporated. I believe the article now satisfies all featured article criteria. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 03:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, the previous FAC does not indicate the candidacy failed for manual of style issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I made that assumption since most users opposed the previous nom due to the peer review not been complete, where most issues were related to WP:MoS, and User:AndyZ indicated he opposed "mostly due to WP:WIAFA 1(a) and 2)". In any case, I think all the issues brought up at both peer reviews have been resolved. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 09:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support: Most of the claims already have been addressed and I see no further reasons to held back this this excellent article from being a FA.Iwazaki 会話。討論 10:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I haven't reviewed the article in its entirety yet, but a quick overview on it looked promising, and well written. The images need some more attention. Royal palce and Image:Polonnaruwa samudra images are split across different sections. Also certain images have bigger size than the remaining. See if you can make them consistent. More later.. - KNM Talk 17:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done All the images no longer have the size attribute set, and it'll depend on user preference. Also images no longer break across sections and I moved some of them to more appropriate sections.--snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well written, but needs some work. For instance,
1)the Table of content is too long. So, some sub-sections can be merged. Example: The birth, childhood and coronation can all be in one section, perhaps with the type of formating that does not enlarge the TOC.
 Done TOC is now considerably shorter, with only the major sub-sections of the article appearing in it.--snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2)The images should be in their default sizes to accomodate easy viewing in all browsers.
 Done Size attribute has been removed from all the images. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3)There are multiple paragraphs in quotations. While they are cited well, can one more more of this be converted into simple prose?
 Done I removed the which contained descriptions of happenings only and converted them to text. I however left two direct quotations, one from Parakramabahu to his generals and the other from the King of Bagan to Sri Lanka envoys, as they directly indicate the feelings of the two individuals. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More later......Dineshkannambadi 21:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will do some copy edits as I go through the article. This will help in fully screening the article. If I inadvertently change the meaning of a sentence, feel free to revert.Dineshkannambadi 19:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image captions should be as short as possible and no more than 3-4 lines.Dineshkannambadi 19:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Captions significantly shortened, leaving important info in place. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calling a King great is fine. But including the term "great" in his name can be controversial, unless significant number of scholars use that terminology.Dineshkannambadi 19:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is known in Sinhalese as "Maha Parakramabahu (which translated means "Parakramabahu the Great") kind of like Richard the Lion Heat or Ivan the Terrible. Most Sinhalese literature refers to him as "Maha Parakramabau, not "Parakramabahu I" (example chapter XI of Paranavitana's History of Ceylon is titled "Civil War and the Emergence of Parakramabahu the Great"). I cited that in the intro. It's not really saying he was great, it's just a name he is known by. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The usage of the term "maha" is very common in Indian history as well. Inscriptions and Literatures written as eulogy of kings often used the term "maha". For instance the 1158 inscription of Bijjala II which called him Mahabhuja Parakramashali which literally means in Kannada language "King with great arms and valour", just as an example. Very often, kings have been even compared to gods, such as the comparison of King Ranadheera Kanteerava Narasaraja Wodeyar of the Kingdom of Mysore by his court poet Govinda Vaidya in the writing Narasaraja Kanteerava Vijayam, or the comparison of king Durvinita to Yudhishtira and Manu in the Nallala grant etc. However this high eulogy is best left to the literatures and inscriptions and not brought into encyclopedia material. However it is okay to write a few sentences indicating that such and such inscription or literature called him "Parakramabahu the Great". This is very acceptable and encyclopediaic. This is also what I have done in various FA's. Just my opinion.Dineshkannambadi 19:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and I agree that simply because ancient literature uses such terms they should not be used in the article. I don't believe the article text explicitly call him "great", the only place the word is used is in the intro where his Sinhalese name "Maha Parakramabahu" is translated to English. So I unbolded the translation and bolded the Sinhalese name. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 14:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Youth" section, please clarify in brackets what is Kalinga and Arya.Dineshkannambadi 15:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done It's mentioned in a previous section,
Furthermore all three were the descendants of Vijayabahu's sister, and thus had a strong claim to the throne; they are referred to in the Culavamsa as the Arya branch of the royal dynasty, whilst Vikramabâhu I is of the Kalinga branch.
so I changed the text to clarify that "Kalinga" and "Arya" are two branches of the royal family. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A few issues:
1) The article is almost entirely sourced to the Culavamsa, which is not considered entirely reliable or credible. See, for example, Geiger's introduction to his translation of the Culavamsa, where he argues that the Dhammakitti's approach to history makes it at best a distorted source.
As such, I'm not sure the article in its present form quite meets criterion 1(c).
2) In addition, the Culavamsa is a primary source and, given that Wikipedia policy prefers secondary sources, I'm not sure it is appropriate for an FA to base itself so much on one single primary source. There are a few promising secondary sources in the footnotes - would it be possible to cite more of the article to them? -- Arvind 12:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, the Culavamsa is not a primary source, it was compiled using primary source (inscription etc.) around the 13th century and is backed up by other contemporary records. It is regarded (sadly other than by your usual quota of racists) as an authoritative source, and most Sri Lankan history is compiled through its accounts. Any other book you find will be based off the Culavamsa. Also, where the authors' of the Culavamsa's opinions are expressed, they are directly attributed as such (note the sections like "according to the Culavamsa ...") --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 14:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your assessment of the Culavamsa (it is a primary source for the same reason Herodotus' history of the war with Persia is a primary source). Is your only response to Geiger's criticism to call him a racist? Anyway, if you're not inclined to change the article, I'll leave it to the other editors here to be the judges as to whether it meets WP:FACR. -- Arvind 14:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Geiger did not say anywhere that the Culavamsa was inaccurate. He pointed out that the opinions of the author may have bias in them, which is why such opinions are directly attributed to the author of the Culavamsa in the article. Also, all text in this article is cited from the first part of the Culavamsa, which was written around the 13th century. To quote Paranavitana on the matter,
"The historical facts of this part of the Culavamsa are repeatedly conformed by a large volume of epigraphical evidence found here (in Sri Lanka) and in South India, as well as by archeological evidence. The second and third part of the Culavamsa ... are of little historical value ...and fall short of the standards of the Mahavamsa and the first part of the Culavamsa."
Compare it to whatever you like, but all authorities on Sri Lankan history, from Codrington to de Silva to Paranavitana to Blaze use it as the main source for their accounts of this part of Sri Lankan history.--snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 16:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the passage from Geiger I was thinking of:
"Now if we look closely at the figure of Parakkamabahu as it meets us in the Culavamsa, especially at the period before he achieved universal sovereignty, we find ourselves faced by a series of contradictions and improbabilities. We are convinced that things did not happen historically in that way. Nor is it possible to form a harmonious and credible picture of the single acts attributed to the youthful Parakkama. The explanation lies in Dhammakitt's conception of the way in which his task was to be achieved. From literary sources, from what he had read he drew an ideal picture of an Indian king. The man whose glorification was his aim must correspond to this picture. He must have all the qualities belonging to an Indian king and employ all the methods of statecraft which political science prescribes or recommends. All these individual traits the compiler combines with the data furnished by tradition, without question as to the probability or improbability of these."
This is precisely why I am concerned about relying almost exclusively on the Culavamsa. That the history narrated in the section of the Culavamsa dealing with Parakramabahu's reign is based on fact isn't in dispute, nor is anyone saying that the author of the Culavamsa tried to distort history; the issue is that the manner in which the Culavamsa is presented doesn't quite give us a complete picture. Secondary sources which use the Culavamsa are able, as it were, to provide for these drawbacks by comparing its narrative against epigraphical and other evidence, and our knowledge of Sri Lankan history generally. Geiger himself does something of that sort through the footnotes to his translation. Which is why we should be basing the article on them, rather than on the Culavamsa. Is this really so difficult to do? -- Arvind 02:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. There are two maps that show the extent of the Chola Empire, the first from the time of around Raja Raja Chola, the next from the time of Kulotunga Chola. The second map conveys only part of the information that is required. While the alliance between Parakramabahu and Pandyas may have defeated the Cholas in Sri Lanka and driven them out of that region, the defeat of the Cholas to Western Chalukya Vikramaditya VI in battle of Vengi in 1093 and again in 1118, and again the defeat of the Cholas to the then Chalukya feudatory, the Hoysalas of Belur in 1114 expelled them from the Kannada speaking regions and Coastal Andhra. There was also a strong Sri Lanka - Chalukya alliance during the early 12th century when Viramaditya VI described the Island kingdom "a natural ally". Just some interesting information.
I will continue to read this article this week. So far looks good.Dineshkannambadi 16:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Well written and interesting reading. Just one more issue. There is no need to write "the Culavamsa mentions" when the citation itself references the Culavamsa. You could just write, It is mentioned, or written or known.Dineshkannambadi 03:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Death and legacy" section has its last sentence uncited and is currently has {{fact}} tag. The "See also" section just has two articles listed, and if those articles are already covered as part of the article content, this section can be removed. If not, more relevant articles, which are closely related to this article may need to be mentioned. - KNM Talk 05:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Cited the requested quote. See also section contains articles about 2 kings of Sri Lanka who rival Parakramabahu in notability. They aren't mentioned in the article (because they ruled many years apart) so I think it's best if we leave the section. I'll try to find additional related articles to add to it. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 07:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support The monarch's importance extends beyond Sri Lanka. It is well written, easy to read. I strongly support featuring this article.Bodhi dhana 19:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - All the concerns I had brought up have been addressed. Well written, well referenced and informative. Meets FA criteria. - KNM Talk 00:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Objection per Arvind. While the article has been better dressed up, Arvind has made an exceptional point that the article is merely a 'container' of accounts of the contradictory Culavamsa. The accounts in the Culavamsa should not be taken literally and merely adds mythological significance. That alone is not a problem since there are articles on myths, but this article is a biography on a king and can't just rely on mythical accounts (historical propaganda) as its mains source. This fails FACs criteria and I think is poorly sourced, much like a school text book. Some of the disclaimer raised in Arvind's comments need to be dealt with, before I can change my mind. Sinhala freedom (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reliable sources (non-pov, no single side coverage) to back up your allegations over the Culavamsa? Such as your accusation for holding Mythology? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Arvind's point. Culavamsa is part of the Mahavamsa creation myth. I have nothing against myths, but this article is meant to be a biography not a myth. Sinhala freedom (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, cite that with reliable sources. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is written from propagandic material of Culavamsa. Culavamsa , like the Mahavamsa, are NOT RS. These are books are Mythological (like Sinhala Freedom says) and cannot be used as RS. These are the same books that say that a race evolved from "Lions" and that these ethnic people are of "Lion Blood". Watchdogb (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reliable sources (non-pov, no single side coverage) to back up your allegations over the Culavamsa? Such as your accusation for holding Mythology? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any RS that says that Culavamsa and Mahavamsa are RS and does not glorify a certain group of people? How about RS that says these are not Myth ? How about RS that says this is not Primary source? Watchdogb (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, this article fails FA Criteria (d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias.. This article glorifies this particular person. The whole article reflects this persons image as god. Of course, according to Chaluvamsa and Mahavamsa, he was a grate King. This article is like writing about God using Religious text. Watchdogb (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already mentioned this, per Paranavitana,
"The historical facts of this part of the Culavamsa are repeatedly conformed by a large volume of epigraphical evidence found here (in Sri Lanka) and in South India, as well as by archeological evidence."
By the way, the last time I submitted this article to be Peer Reviewed, weren't you blocked by User:Blnguyen for trying to disrupt the article? Is this just a continuation? --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was only blocked unfairly by Blyguyn. Noting that Blynguyn claimed something that was offending the whole Tamil Race I am not too worried about his blocks. Also where did your quote for the reliability from ? As far as I see anything that says that any race of people evolved from the Lions (mated by human) there is nothing that makes it RS. Go ahead bring some RS that says that this is RS and not some citations from people like "Rohan gunaratna". Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support This monarch has done great service to Sri Lanka in all areas including irrigation, agriculture and defense. It is interesting and valuable info, and anyone who reads it will enjoy and learn. I strongly support featuring this article. Supermod (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Mahavamsa and Culavamsa are reliable historic documents, The original scriptures are in Pali, sometimes people have misinterpreted the mention of race evolved from Lions as actual Lions, rather it implies a race that evolved from "People who are as brave as Lions" , to elaborate more "Richard the Lion heart" does not mean king Richard had a Lions heart, rather it implies he was very brave, fierce etc (this is open to lot of interpretations again). Most of Sri Lanka's history is from these scriptures. And Professor Paranavithana's archaeological discoveries have further strengthened whatever said in these sources. NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 18:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let make statements and intepretations as we want. Do you have reliable evidence indicate what you have said Sinhala freedom (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article reads well and is uncomplicated.. but some areas seem to require a couple of rounds of copyedit. Has the WP:League of copyeditors been requested to go through the article already? If not, I think it would be a good idea to bring them in for a quick makeover. Sarvagnya 20:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request was submitted to WP:LOCE. Seams they are pretty backlogged at the moment [1]. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 21:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it may be a good idea to harvardize the refs. For pointers about how to go about it, please check India article and do the needful.
  • Comment of the 96 citations 43 are Culavamsa - Large sections seem to have only Culavamsa as a source (OR?). Is this due to it being the only source available? Perhaps a better way to organize would be "according to culavambsa" and "according to archeologists"? Some note should be in the article about recent discoveries, scholarly activity, on who he was, etcetera.--Keerllston 01:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, how can Culvamsa-Mahavamsa (called the Mahavamsa) be considered a biographical source, when it defies modern science and claims people descended from lions. The Culvamsa section should perhaps say this is a mythical account of the king. Sinhala freedom (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should read Primary sources for clarification regarding using Culavamsa this many times in a to be featured article Taprobanus (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A well-referenced, informative article. Its also unique, considering we do not have too much information on Sri Lanka.Bakaman 06:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well references with Primary sources, I might add Taprobanus (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We lack coverage on both Sinhala people and Sri Lankan Tamils. This article is not just a good article, but a beacon for better edits in the future, and for expanding the community.Bakaman 00:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a good article in that it glorifies someone with a help of non-RS sources that is full of myths. Watchdogb (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I dont have a problem with articles such as these becoming featured. We need more of our history, conflict and just plain living properly documented fit for an encylopedia, except those who are pushing for this to be featured are being lazy, because there are number of secondary sources by very emmminent historians that deal with this subject matter. All what they have to do is look it up and cite it properly instead of relying on a primary source for 75% of the article. Taprobanus (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection -[1c] lacking reliable secondary sources in large parts of article.
"According to the ancient chronicle Culavamsa, Parâkramabâhu's birth was predicted by a figure akin to a god seen in a dream by his father, King Manabharana of Dhakkinadesa" does not seem quite encyclopedic in tone and clearly shows the problem at hand. --Keerllston 04:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see your point here. The story of his life is derived mostly from accounts in the Chulavamsa, a historic chronicle written centuries after his death. It is not a primary source as defined by Wikipedia. Accounts in any recent book which I believe you refer to as "reliable secondary sources", for example Paranavitana's "History of Ceylon", will be derived mostly from the Chulavamsa. That's what makes this article so good. Instead of referencing books that selectively chose parts of the Chulavamsa, most of the article is directly cited to the source of those books. For example, instead of the Chulavamsa saying "Parakramabahu I captured Rajarata in 1153", Paranavitana quoting from the Chulavamsa to say "in 1153 Parakramabahu I captured Rajarata" and us then citing from Paranavitana's book, the article directly cites the Chulavamsa for such facts. Other sentences, like archaeological finds and opinions of historians, are referenced from modern day books. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 17:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to mislead editors here. Culavamsa is as primary a source as using Illiad for wrting an article about Ancient Troy. Enough said, hit a library and get some secondary sources, a featured article is not a link farm. Do the hard work and then this will be featured Taprobanus (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The research seems to have already been done, Taprobanus. I don't have the subject expertise to check the veracity of every single fact in the article that's attributed to the Culavamsa, but I do know that there are three main areas where the Culavamsa's account is generally considered misleading - namely, its suppression of the defeat of Parakramabahu's army in Tamil Nadu, its gross exaggeration of the Burma campaign, and its attribution of the construction of a whole lot of tanks to Parakramabahu which were actually built by others, and with which often had no connection whatsoever. The article duly acknowledges all of these, and sets out the scholarly consensus on what really happened, which wouldn't have been possible if at least one of the authors hadn't reviewed the key secondary sources. I think the real issue here is not that the contributors don't want to do the work - they've done it - but that they genuinely think that it's better to cite the Culavamsa than Codrington, de Silva, L.E. Blaze and others. Once again, I would urge the contributors to read Geiger's 1930 article "The Trustworthiness of the Mahavamsa" (the section on the Culavamsa begins on page 212), and especially the paragraph starting at the bottom of p. 215 where he points out that the Culavamsa is a legitimate source for writing history, but must be used with "cautious criticism" to "find out the actual course of the events." That sort of cautious criticism isn't something we can use our own judgment over on Wikipedia - we must rely on secondary sources, and since you've obviously consulted the secondary sources, why not just cite them? -- Arvind (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, my point was perhaps unintentionally unclear, due to it's concise nature.
Whether a father foretold a birth or not is the kind of thing that would be part of a myth, not part of an encyclopedia, especially since such a tale comes from an unreliable source, and given that such is common in mythology - "omens preceding birth" - myths rather than facts.
From the article the Trustworthiness of Mahavamsa:
"It is, therefore, clear that Parakkamabahu I was the favourite hero of the compiler of the first portion of the Culavamsa" does not seem to say that the first part is trustworthy - in fact it seems to say it is biased.
"There is a good number of fables, legends and tales of marvels in the Mahavamsa, and we must in each particular case attempt to find out whether there is in the narrative an historical kernel or not." seems rather supporting of the idea of the source as a primary source.
I read only till page 210 - I may have missed other parts that certify it's trustworthiness, however the article does not treat it as a trustworthy source, just as a source that has "some basis" in fact.
--Keerllston 16:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns not Addressed Citations 14-46 are all Culavamsa - a primary source
from "the trustworthiness of culavamsa
"It is clear that in the passages where the chronicler deals with the deeds of his favourite hero, scepticism is justified, for the panegyrist is always prone to make exaggerations, suppress facts or even to invent stories."
--Keerllston 16:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support provided previous reviewer's concerns over 1c are resolved. Tony (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • More on 1c. Ref 71 has no date accessed. Who on earth is the author? His/her name appears on that single, rather slender page, but is this person authoritative? I can't find the cited title on the site. It doesn't seem to support the caption to which it is appended. Unsatisfactory. Ref 81, no author's name is specified on the site. Who wrote it? Why is it to be regarded as reliable? In fact, none of the web references appears to be at all satisfactory. Tony (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • apparently
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
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][?]
I am also concerned of the quantity of information from a single primary source and the support received by people who appear to be from that region of the world (I'm not saying the region is untrustworthy, but "I liked it" is hardly good support for an FA article; furthermore, this is common for any article that attracts a group of viewers who like a certain subject).
— BQZip01 — talk 08:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First: The book Early History of Ceylon from G.C. Mendis (1932) gives only 12 lines for the history of Parâkramabâhu I, but it would qualify for a reference which is not Culavamsa. Second: The article CW Nicholas (1954). "The irrigation works of king Parakramabahu I". The Ceylon Historical Jour. IV. would be a good addition, as it is one of the few direct mentionings of Parâkramabâhu I in science articles. The two other articles on irigantion projects in Cylon R. A. L. H. Gunawardana (1971). "Irrigation and Hydraulic Society in Early Medieval Ceylon". Past and Present (53): 3–27. doi:10.1093/past/53.1.3.Rhoads Murphey (1957). "The Ruin of Ancient Ceylon". The Journal of Asian Studies. 16 (2): 181–200. doi:10.2307/2941377. JSTOR 2941377.

also credit Parâkramabâhu I with major distributions. This references should be part of the article and also the achivements in irrigation.--Stone (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Parâkramabâhu_I/archive2&oldid=1223785525"