Talk:Sirkazhi/GA1

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

Reviewer: Thine Antique Pen (talk · contribs) 21:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to have to fail this due to the many prose issues in the article. I haven't fully looked yet.
 * "Sirkazhi, is a" -> "Sirkazhi is a"
 * "to the 7th century" -> "to the seventh century"
 * "The town is believed" -> "Sirkazhi is believed" to avoid repetition
 * "till 1991" -> "until 1991"
 * "and Nagapattinam district from 1997" -> "and has been a part of Nagapattinam district since 1997"
 * "It is administered by a second grade municipality. The town is a part of the Cauvery delta region and agriculture is the major occupation." -> "Administered by a second grade municipality, the town is part of the Cauvery delta region with agriculture as the major occupation"
 * "In ancient times, this town had twelve" -> "In ancient times, Sirkazhi had twelve"
 * "The town is thus" -> "Sirkazhi is thus"
 * "Tevaram" does not need to be italicalized
 * "The Chola king Kocengannan" -> "Chola king Kocengannan"
 * "After India's independence" -> "After India was made independent"
 * "It was made a part of Nagapattinam district frm 1997 when the district was newly created" -> "From 1997, it was made a part of Nagapattinam district when it was created"
 * "The town is situated at the" -> "Sirkazhi is situated at the"
 * "As of 2001, Sirkazhi had a population of 32,228.[22] Males constituted 51% of the population and females 49%, leading to a sex ratio of 990.[22]" -> "As of 2001, Sirkazhi had a population of 32,228,[22] with 51% of the population being male and 49% female, leading to a sex ratio of 990.[22]" - also, what?


 * Also, many citations are without page numbers. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * These seem to be MOS issues, which can be easily fixed - there can be different manual styles of writing. I prefer using the town name once in a para, while others prefer every second sentence. The review process doesn't seem to be democratic and the article in its current state is definitely not a fast fail IMO. If only perfect articles can be GA at nomination stage, we need not have a review/rework process at all.Ssriram mt (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, i dont see any book reference without page numbers - which ones are being referred here? Ssriram mt (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * For now, I would suggest you ask for the article to be copyedited at WP:GOCE/REQ. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, done. Ssriram mt (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)