Talk:Kanchipuram/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ravichandar84 (talk · contribs) 06:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll be evaluating this article for GA-status. I'll have a brief look at the article and identify visible errors before a detailed examination of the sources.- Ravi My Tea Kadai 06:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking up the review.


 * Firstly, the article needs a thorough copy-edit. I find "Kancheepuram" spelt as "Kancheeepuram" in some places. As per WP:NPOV, "decimated" might not be an appropriate term to be used. "second in glory" might be a peacock term.
 * Not enough. The prose is not good - I copy-edited part of "History" section but the whole article needs to be completely copy-edited.- Ravi My Tea Kadai 18:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * some more rewording done across sections.
 * some more rewording done across sections.


 * I request the nominator to clarify why the article has been named "Kanchipuram" if the official spelling of the city is "Kancheepuram".
 * It is as per WP:COMMONNAME - discussion in here.


 * Being a passionate lover of Indian history myself, I doubt the veracity of some of the claims made. The paragraph claims that the Early Cholas ruled Kanchipuram till 2 AD when it was invaded by the Kalabhras. Well, the rule of Early Cholas over Kanchipuram does seem interesting and new to me. However, I know quite well that the Kalabhras were a strange and obscure dynasty about whom little is known. Nor have the Sangam period Chola monarchs and their dates been fixed with absolute certainty. I request the nominator to add more sources to support these claims.
 * Some references to this angle are found at - (i} and (ii). The dark age of Kalbrhas have limited references, though.
 * None of these sources confirm the 2 BCE date. As for the Kalabhra invasion, they only state that the Kalabhras conquered the Tamil country - they do not mention individual cities. As I've already mentioned the Kalabhras seem to have been a little-known dynasty. Even the limits of their power and extent of their kingdom appear to be doubtful. I've incorporated the claims of Early Chola rule over Kanchipuram along with my own additions.- Ravi My Tea Kadai 18:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The influence of language mentioned needs rewriting IMO. There are clear sources that Kalbrahas ruled not only Kanchi but Tamil country as such. The influence of Sanskrit doesn't mean Tamil didn't exist at all. Suggest Kalbrahas part can be added with the caveat.


 * All the monarchs of the Vijayanagar Empire have been listed as rulers of Kanchipuram. This might not be necessary if all of them had, indeed, ruled over Kanchipuram.


 * It has been claimed that Bodhidharma hailed from Kanchipuram. However, the article on "Bodhidharma" itself states that the Kanchi origin of Bodhidharma is just one of four or five prevalent theories. The sentence should be modified accordingly.- Ravi My Tea Kadai 07:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - caveat added. Ssriram mt (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I had a good look at the lead and noted the following concerns.

"The provisional population totals of 2011 census indicate the population of the city is yet to be released"


 * I think this is the case with all the cities in India not Kanchipuram alone. Hence, I feel that it is better to have this as a footnote - not in the body of the article and certainly not in the lead


 * I have removed in the lead. One thing which i see in some municipal websites (including Kanchipuram) is 2011 census actuals. Not sure whether it is provisional that they have published.

"Two of the industrial parks, Sriperumbudur and Oragadam, located in the outskirts of Kanchipuram city are home to a large number of automobile, phone, auto parts, float glasses, leather, Information Technology, sugar, garment, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, dyes, dies & forgings, optical fibre and blood bag manufacturers."


 * Sriperumbudur is certainly not on the outskirts of Kanchipuram town. It is almost 30 kms from Kanchipuram - a big deal for a city which covers only 11 square kilometres.(The article on Oragadam mentions a "Sriperumbudur–Oragadam belt" which is better terminology; however, sources are needed to prove that such a belt exists) - Ravi My Tea Kadai 18:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅. I added as the belt is one of the major employers of both Kanchipuram and Chennai. But there is no quantitative material to prove it, so removed it. Ssriram mt (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Montage


 * I feel that the black-and-white image in the montage brings down the attractiveness of the montage. Could be replaced with a colour photograph if available.
 * The picture of a man weaving silk is too small. Close-up image of an actual Kanchipuram silk saree would be better.- Ravi My Tea Kadai 06:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * dont have a Kanchipuram silk saree. Image is brightened and bordered. Also the Vardaraja Perumal gopuram image is coloured, just that the gopuram is black and white. Ssriram mt (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopaediaofauthentichinduism.org and advaita-vedanta.org cannot be considered as reliable sources. Suggesting that they be replaced with suitable alternatives- Ravi My Tea Kadai 03:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Ssriram mt (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * History

I've completely revamped "History" section as felt it was not comprehensive enough. Hope, this is fine with you. Else you can revert then if you feel that the old one is better.- Ravi My Tea Kadai 04:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A great piece of edit from your side has made it highly comprehensive. I will make minor changes. One thing that spriks is the number of references to K.V - almost entirely 3 paras refer to it raising the question of single source. Also i understand you are planning to build pages for the redlinks? Ssriram mt (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Well, I think it only creates a problem if the whole article relies on a single source not a section or two. Atleast, I am not too strict against "single-source sections" and I guess most others won't be so strict either unless it is a WP:FAC. Anyway, I'll try to find other sources and add them to the article.- Ravi My Tea Kadai 13:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggestion

It is my opinion that the "Religion" section will be better off if reduced to three sections in the following manner


 * Hinduism - all the stuff on Hinduism could be retained in this section.
 * Other religions - The paragraph on Christianity and Islam could be moved here
 * Extinct religions - The sections on "Buddhism" and "Jainism" could be merged and moved here.

- Ravi My Tea Kadai 06:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I prefer to retain based on the broad sections on Hinduism, Buddhism(as it was a notable buddhist site with so many celebrities of the time) and Jainism (as Kanchi was the major force of the religion getting diminished in the region). "Extinct" may make a bad read for the respective religions as some traces are still there & there are followers as well. Ssriram mt (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I had a thought on it and struck upon a better idea. The title "Religion" carries a great deal of ambiguity. The section could be done away with and instead, content on temples, mosques, churches and buildings could be moved to a new section "Art and architecture" along with the first paragraph of "Demographics" section which describes the layout of the city and the styles of construction used. The philosophical and theological aspects discussed under the "Religion" section could be moved to "Society and culture" and religion-based headcounts to "Demographics" section. I had attempted to prepare a sample on these lines. It is available in my sandbox. Nevertheless, I am not insisting.- Ravi My Tea Kadai 02:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have ordered religion in chronological order. The conversion of Pallavas to Hinduism(saivism) changed the religious geo of present day TN. The religion wise data undermines the historic importance and hence i prefer to keep it this way. I can rephrase the conents to make it lucid. Ssriram mt (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * To avoid smaller paragraphs, I feel that the second paragraph in the section "Hinduism" starting with "Ekambareswarar Temple.. " could be merged with paragraph 4 starting with "Muktheeswarar Temple ..." into a single paragraph on Shiva temples. The third paragraph starting with "Kumarakottam ..." could be a stand-alone paragraph. Similarly, the paragraph starting with "Varadharaja Perumal Temple ..." and "Tiruparamechura Vinnagaram ..." could be merged together into a single paragraph on Vishnu temples.- Ravi My Tea Kadai 02:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Good job. I had assessed only the first few paragraphs for grammar, spelling, prose flow, etc. Hence, I am submitting this article to WP:GOCE for a final, comprehensive copy-edit.- Ravi My Tea Kadai 03:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Geography

As per criteria 3a I feel the "Geography" section could be expanded more. There could be a sentence on the flora and another on the fauna of Kanchipuram and its surroundings (without going into much detail). There could also be a line on seismic activity in Kanchipuram - Ravi My Tea Kadai 02:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - flora and seismic details added. Reserve forest + fauna are mostly around chengalpet, vedanthangal - so didnt add the details. Ssriram mt (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Since there is a heavy backlog in WP:GOCE, I've decided to close this GA review.

1) Well-written: b
 * the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct. b The prose is quite okay though I was not able to do a comprehensive check
 * it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. b

2) Factually accurate and verifiable:
 * it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; As far as I can ascertain
 * it contains no original research. As far as I can ascertain

3) Broad in its coverage:


 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). b Summary style has not been completely implemented. Importance is given to unnecessary detail. However, on the whole, it appears okay.

4) Neutral: 5) Stable: 6) Illustrated, if possible, by images: b


 * images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content As far as I can ascertain
 * images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. b Image captions should be improved. Also, the quality of the images might not be so good. For example, the picture of the temple in "History" section displays data about the photograph which should be removed. A picture of important landmarks in Kanchipuram city apart from temples should be put up. The sections on Education, etc., require images but that's quite okay.

On the whole the article is good enough for GA though many further enhancements could be made.- Ravi My Tea Kadai 05:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)