Talk:Nandanar/GA1

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 14:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria 
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * See comment 1 below
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments
(Optional) photo is not a good photo. It is low resolution and I cannot make out any of the details discussed in the caption. Good photos aren't required for GA, just that they are free, relevant, and captioned, and it passes all of those, but it may be worth thinking about removing or replacing it.
 * 1) The number of alternate names in the lead should be cut down to the most well known. Alternate names can be included in the text of the article where they are relevant.
 * The problem is that various English sources use the alternate names/spellings in various sources. So they need to be mentioned. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 07:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While various names may be used in the sources, only one or two of the more important names should be included in the lead per WP:LEAD: In articles about people...the title can be followed in the first line by one or two alternative names in parentheses....Consider footnoting foreign-language and archaic names if they would otherwise clutter the opening sentence. Wugapodes (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * can you please advise on which are the most important names of Nandanar, which need to be retained in the lead. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In the images of Nandanar in large temples where the 63 Nayanmars are housed, only "Nandanar" or "Thirunaalaippovar" or " Tiru Nalai Povar Nayanar" are used. I think the three alone can be mentioned. My other suggestion is, there is a big propaganda in Tamil Nadu by some of the caste based parties on his getting burnt due to caste dominance. The recent statements like the ones of P.Sampath have been superlative and can be discarded as I feel they are more of WP:recentism. The account of his getting burnt based on historical notes and references can be retained.Ssriram mt (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) You may want the wikilink of "caste system" to point to Caste system in India rather than the generic Caste system as it is the Indian caste system spoken of, rather than caste systems in a general or anthropological sense.
 * Done. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 07:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) that brought Nandanar in the limelight The wording here is unencyclopedic and probably a little imprecise.
 * Done.
 * 1) Do the sources call Nandanar Charitam a magnum opus? Still, I feel it's a little non-neutral. What are your thoughts?
 * The exact word may not be used in sources; but terms like best-known work, greatest work etc. are used. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 07:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The wording is fine then I think. Wugapodes (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Though Nadanar's date remains unknown... "date" feels wrong in this context. Something like "though it is unknown when he lived exactly..." would probably be better.
 * Done.
 * 1) He was a leather maker. The Nayanar made drums and other musical instruments using leather. These sentences could be combined if rewritten and would make the prose sound better.
 * Done.
 * 1) (abbreviated as CPI (M)) I'm not sure that's necessary if you don't use the abbreviation again.
 * The party is popularly known as CPI (M) in India. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 07:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think "known as" would be better than "abbreviated as" in that case because it's more a popular name than an abbreviation used throughout the section (because the abbreviation isn't used again until much later). Wugapodes (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) In the early half of the 20th century... be more specific as to the date.
 * Not given in source used.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 07:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine then. Wugapodes (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Nandan is lover of art, than God. I don't understand this sentence.
 * Nandan is portrayed as someone who loves art, rather than a lover of God (devotee, as in earlier accounts).
 * 1) In the last paragraph of Variants, "Abirami" and "Abhirami" are both used. The name should be consistent
 * Corrected.
 * 1) In a similar note, that same section also refers to Nandanar as Nandan. While that may be the name used in the source material, one name should be used consistently throughout the article (preferably the titular name).
 * Since the books use Nandan, that word is used. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 07:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While that may be the name used in the source material, in the article, one name should be used consistently. In introducing the work you can say something like "refering to him as Nandan" but then, for clarity, use the same name the Nandanar is refered to throughout the article as if someone were to skip to this section, they may not understand why Nandan is being used and be confused. Wugapodes (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) besides another in Airavatesvara Temple of Darasuram (12th century) dedicating him in the trail by fire. This wording is confusing.
 * Done.
 * 1) ...the symbol of Dalit oppression as written it sounds as if the Dalits were oppressing someone rather than being oppressed. I feel something like "symbol of the oppression of the Dalit caste" would be better.
 * Done.
 * 1) Nandanar's tale is retold numerous times through folk tales, art forms like Villu Paatu and "musical discourses", plays and literature. Revising this series, or using an oxford comma to make it less ambiguous, would be helpful as I group it as (folk tales), art forms like (Villu Paatu and musical discourses), (plays and literature) and then I realize that's wrong. I think if you had something like "through art forms like folktales, art forms like Villu Paatu and or "musical discourses", plays, and literature" it would be easier to understand.
 * Folktales (e.g. passed on from a mother to a child) are not considered art forms by themselves. Story-telling like Villu Paatu (who tell stories from folk as well as Hindu epics or other written scriptures) is considered as an art form. -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 07:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable then, but I think the series could be reworded to flow better. As it stands it reads awkwardly because "art forms like Villu Paatu and musical discourses" is in the middle of a bunch of other single items. Wugapodes (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Numerous Tamil films numerous here is imprecise. I would recommend "a number of" rather than "numerous" as "a number of" has a more neutral connotation (but that may just be me).
 * Done.

Results
On Hold for 7 days pending revision. Overall a very well written article. I also appreciate the critique of the mythology from a non-religious perspective which I feel is a must but can be lacking. Fixing the lead and going over it for clarity is all I think it needs to be a GA. Good work! Wugapodes (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wugapodes, Thanks for the review. However, I may not be able to respond to a 7 day deadline. I am busy in real life and check wikipedia only on weekends. I request you to please bear the delayed responses, before you take a final call on the article. Apologies for your discomfort, if any. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 07:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , it's no problem, real life gets in the way for everyone. How about on hold until the 18th of July? That would be 14 days from today.
 * Also, I don't have a response to the rest as I'm in the middle of reviewing a behemoth of an article and want to finish that up first. It's rather late where I live. I'll give your revisions a look through in the morning. Wugapodes (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to extend the hold period for another week (until 27 July) because you haven't been active since your last edit to the page on the 4th and I want to give you a chance to address the other points. However, if I don't hear from you before the 27th, I'll probably close review. Wugapodes (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wugapodes, Thanks for your patience. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Listed It's been a while since I've read the article so apologies that I can't offer more concrete suggestions on how to improve the article, but I will say that the article is very good. I'd recommend a peer review before seeking FA status as it can help with tightening the prose which is good but could be better. I would also think about image placement and the selection of images. Towards the end, all the images are on one side which isn't very interesting. Anyway, this is a very well done article, congrats on your work and good luck on continued improvement. Happy editing! Wugapodes (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)