Talk:Kumbakonam/GA2

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

I expanded this article when I was new to Wikipedia. But then, it cites tourist guides and lonely planet publications, which are consider unacademic and promotional and hence, unreliable. I request for a reassessment of this article- Ravi My Tea Kadai 12:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree about the travel guides being unreliable. Again it should not be too hard to find replacements. Have you seen if anyone is interested in working on it at one of the related Wikiprojects. AIR corn (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I will start on the rework on MOS issues.


 * Image alt


 * remove promotional references


 * remove deadlinks


 * copy edits


 * convert template


 * montage


 * separate section on utilities

Ssriram mt (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please suggest portions remaining for this to be closed. Ssriram mt (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is usually up to the initiator to close these reassessments (in this case User:Ravichandar84). Personally I think you have done more than enough to save it. AIR corn (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I appreciate the good copy-editing work done on the article. However, certain changes have been made which I feel doesn't make the article look too impressive. Firstly, while I appreciate the fact that most of the unreliable sources have been removed, few replacements have been made. As a result, a fair chunk of text (esp in "Temples" and "Transport" sections) remain unsourced. Secondly, I don't think that montages would look good for small towns though they might indeed look impressive for bigger cities. In this case, plenty of temple pictures have been added to the montage which makes it look over-crowded. Besides, why do we need images for Sarangapani temple and most others in the montage while pictures have been included in the "Temples" section. I also observe that the picture of Mahamaham Tank has been added to the "Economy" section. "One of the largest temple tanks" is certainly as peacock term and needs to be replaced.- Ravi My Tea Kadai 05:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have included some more references. The montage gives a set of pictures, which otherwise may be hard to accommodate in the article; small or big town really shouldnt be the criteria. The earlier picture or town hall doesnt have a mention in the article, while all others in the montage are the primary landmarks of the town. I have trimmed the montage and rearranged other pics. It is natural that the temples (180 in number) cover portions of the article as they do in the town. Ssriram mt (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

As per Good article criteria no 3 and 4 and WP:UNDUE, the article ought to give equal weightage to the history, geography, transportation, politics, etc. of the town. True, Kumbakonam has over 100 temples but that is not reason enough to have 11 of the 17 photos in the articles (including the montage) depicting temples in Kumbakonam, it amounts to overrepresentation - you can very well have photos of all the temples in Kumbakonam in an article on Temples of Kumbakonam. Unnecessary duplication, too, I feel should be avoided. As far as the picture in the "History" section is concerned, I feel that the historical 1840s drawing of the Ramaswamy temple would have done better justice to the title of the section. I don't know if there is any Wikipedia article forbidding inclusion of photos of any object or monument not described in the article itself. I had followed the example of Mangalore in adding the town hall picture- Ravi My Tea Kadai
 * I have removed the duplicates as per previous discussion. The inscriptions & parent structure in Nageswaran temple are from Chola period and i feel it appropriate to be placed there. The temples are the primary documentation sources on the history part and a mention about them in the temple section is appropriate. I have tried not go beyond a line or two and to make the section on par with the other sections. Please review the missing pieces, we can close them too.Ssriram mt (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

1) Well-written: b


 * the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct. b Pretty okay. The section on Utility services is made of two small paragraphs that I feel it could be merged with some other section.
 * it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. As discussed in the GA-reassessment, the image caption for the Mahamaham contains peacock terms, but they haven't been remedied yet. A standard referencing style is not followed. The last name of the author along with the year should be used for citations ("Ayyar 1920" and not "P. V. Jagadisa Ayyar 1920"). The citations texts "Imperial Gazetteer of India" and "International Dictionary of Historic Places" should be replaced with author names.

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;
 * it contains no original research. The first sentence in the section "Education" claims that "The oldest functional educational institute in Kumbakonam is the Raja Veda Padasala, established by Govinda Dikshitar during the 16th century, that teaches Sanskrit vedic scriptures in specialised fields of Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, Agamas and Sastras." However, the source cited as reference does not state anywhere that the Raja Veda Padasala is the oldest in Kumbakonam. It is therefore WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.

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).  "During the Mahamaham festival of 1992, there was a major stampede in which 48 people were killed and 74 were injured." Why has this been mentioned? Was it the worst-ever accident of its kind in the Mahamaham? If so, then should it not belong in the "History" section. The article has too manyb images of temples and temple tanks.

4) Neutral:

5) Stable:

6) Illustrated, if possible, by images:


 * images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
 * images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. There are excessive images of temples in Kumbakonam which could have been avoided. There are two images of the Mahamaham tank. The photos of the sculptures in Nageswaran temple has excessive lighting.

On the whole, I feel inclined to delist this article.- Ravi My Tea Kadai 06:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we are still in progress and surprised to see the closure without providing time for a discussion/rework. All the comments were addressed right on the same day. Also a methodical review as done on Kanchipuram would have been best to handle this review.
 * The points on referencing of Ayyar, Imperial was not mentioned earlier and it is a simple edit.
 * Mahamaham tank and Mahamaham festival are two different entities - that is why two images are added. There is no peacock there as "prominent" is a commonly used term - example Mumbai. The annual Maham festival is one of the top 10 festivals in terms of number of visitors as per HR&CE calendar. The 1992 mishap movement to history is merely a copy paste from one section to other.
 * Images - we have a 10th century sculpture replacing a 20th century painting. Which should take precedence in history secion is common sense. If lighting is bleak, an alternate image can well be added. More images on temples - 2 more than originally present. Also i am not sure why a sculpture and a tank is counted with temples. Check this site as how these temples are treated by government - these are not merely religious, but cultural is the underline - p2. The tone is cultural and not religious.
 * Raja veda padasala - the reference clearly states 16th century. How much original research is needed to tell 16th century is older or 19th century? Also the part on "functional" is left out i suppose.


 * On the whole, i seek a reassessment on the points above in a list with timeframe and the fail/pass be assessed subsequently. Also a second opinion can be sought if need be. I am not blindly seeking a GA, but with the effort put in and minimal rework that is needed, i think this can be through. Ssriram mt (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ All corrections mentioned above on references, images and merge are implemented.Ssriram mt (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ample time has been provided. According to the good article criteria, a GAC should be typically closed within two weeks. I guess you might observe that almost a month has elapsed since this article has been submitted for a reassessment. The reference only states that the Rajaveda Patashala has been constructed in the 16th century, it does not explicitly state that it is the oldest and unless it does so it is a violation of WP:SYNTH. The 19th century drawing is a colonial-era artist's impression of how the temple looked at that time. Adding the picture of an old inscription in the "History" section is okay, but if you really wanted to add a modern-day photograph of a work of antiquity then why not move the picture of the Mahamaham Tank or Sarangapani Temple there. They were also created a long time back weren't they.- Ravi My Tea Kadai  17:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ample time?? Most of the comments were mentioned right before the closure and that too as closure comments. As again, you missed the part of "functional". Two of the oldest functional institutes are the Government college for Men and the Padasala. It is mentioned as the oldest functional institute and not the oldest institute. I think you took the replacement of the painting too personal and the reasoning seems to be more than what is needed for a mere swapping of positions of pics! As such i see no constructive review comments and a definitive pass/fail criteria all through the process - i have identified the list myself and closed and it is natural that it might not meet reviewer's expectation. The whole intent seems to be to delist rather than to seek improvements because i see no article getting delisted when active work is in progress. I have requested fresh reassessment anyways, so let us see how the community views it. Let us move on. Ssriram mt (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)