Wikipedia:Peer review/Matrikas/archive1

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,

Please see automated peer review suggestions below. Thanks, APR _t 03:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)

Per Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR _t 03:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]