Talk:Nagapattinam/GA1

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

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 18:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I will review this article. It will commence in a day or two. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Ssriram mt (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Introduction
I really like the succinct and informative style of this lead. Very nice!

Infobox
This is all fine, the image checks out.

Etymology
This section looks nice.

History
Starting soon. Also, I apologize for the excessive wait. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks. Ssriram mt (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, starting again. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Can Sangam period be wikilinked?

"From 1799 to 1845 CE Nagapttinam was the headquarters of Tanjore district." Spelling error

Everything else good.

Geography
This section looks fine.

2004 tsunami
Looks great here.

Demographics
"...belong to Scheduled Castes (SC)and 700 people constituting 0.7% of the population..." Space between (SC) and the following and.

Everything else is good.

Economy
"...but lot of agricultural related trading in the town." How about you change the sentence to "but alot of agricultural commerce is conducted in the town."

"Bulk of the employment in the town..." The bulk...

What is CPCL?

Lowercase for the term "automated teller machines".

Everything else is good.

Transport
Everything is fine, but if this port was utilized by the Dutch, British or French as a naval base or port, please specify in the article.

Culture and tourism
This section is great, but the spelling of the section title should be changed to reflect how I spelled it above.

Education and utility services
This section's content is fine, but you should separate the education and utility parts into individual sections.
 * I followed as in Thiruvarur where the thin section was merged. When split, it becomes very lean - so prefer to retain just for size uniformity with other sections.

Politics
Again, content is great but the section's title should just be "Politics".

Conclusion
This a very fine article and I enjoyed reviewing it. Once the given issues have been fixed, I will pass this article. Congratulations! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have included the 2011 provisional totals and made minor modifications in other sections. Ssriram mt (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)