Talk:Tamil Nadu/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 14:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello - I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have my full review up shortly. However, just in a quick first glance, I can see that this article has many of the same problems as the article I reviewed by this nominator yesterday. I would very much suggest that the nominator work with a more experience GA writer to improve their articles before bringing them back to GAN. More shortly, Dana boomer (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a significant amount of unsourced information. Some of it is marked with citation needed tags, much of it is not. Statistics, opinions, quotes, etc. need references. This is the biggest issue with the article, and it will take the longest to fix.
 * Quite a few probably unreliable references (These are examples, found during a quick look. The number of dead links and the missing information in many refs makes it much more difficult to check reference reliability.):
 * #32 - IndiaandIndians.com
 * #33 - Tamilspider.com
 * #152 - Another Wikipedia article?!?
 * #163 - Sports in Chennai
 * 42 dead links (wow!), see here for details.
 * Many refs need additional information. All web refs should include a title, publisher and access date at the very least, and an indication of their language if they are not in English.
 * The weighting of the History section seems rather off, with two sections and eight paragraphs being spent on the period between 600 and 1300 AD, and only one paragraph each being given to the other periods. This section should be rewritten to better balance the sections, based on the weight given them in high-quality reliable sources.
 * In-line external links, such as those found in the Leather industry section, should be removed or turned into references.
 * Text should not be sandwiched between two images, or between an infobox and an image. This happens in several places throughout the article.
 * Standardize to one variety of English - there is both program and programme, for instance, as well as both meter and metre.
 * Links to three disambiguation pages: Marigold, Royal fern and Mahindra World City

The huge number of dead links, the missing sources, and the lack of information given for many refs makes it quite difficult to check for things like reliable referencing, copyright compliance, etc. This article is going to require a significant time investment to bring it up to compliance with the good article criteria. Again, I would suggest that this nominator begin working with an experience GA author to improve their comprehension of the GA criteria. I also, again, see no indication the the nominator has worked on the article - cleanup before a GA nomination is often a large amount of work, and sometimes almost completely re-writing and re-sourcing the article is necessary. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)