Talk:Virudhunagar/GA2

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

Reviewer: Vensatry (talk · contribs) 14:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll be taking up this review. Will post the comments in a day or two &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  14:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot.Ssriram mt (talk) 01:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments
 * The prose is still weak for eg., "Virudhupatti, is the town" and there is no space between a period and the sentences that follow in a few places.
 * What's an "A grade municipality"?
 * "Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu from 1954 to 1963 and recipient of Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian award" seems too much for a lede.
 * Name the temple in the infobox
 * There is almost nothing about the history of the town
 * The town is notable in sources only during the period of late British Rule. I am really not sure if the regional Polygar history be included here.


 * The Geography section is unorganized, with majority of them unsourced. For eg., the area covered by the municpality should go to the top and conversion should be from km2 to mi2
 * I am missing the ref here from TN website, will fit it in shortly.


 * Lead and infobox mentions the population of the town as 72,081 while the demographics section says 73,003, although the male-female population put together gives the correct figure.
 * "99 people constituting 0.15 per cent" 01.5 percent of what?
 * Why is population density calculated on the basis of hectares
 * The second para of the demographics section seems totally irrelevant
 * The region classification cannot strictly come under demographics, also not in geography. For industrial/agricultural classification, the data gives a quick snapshot and thought of including it.


 * Source for the population chart indicates as 1961-2001
 * "The agricultural output of the town is limited because the local geography" you need to be more specific
 * "All major nationalised banks have branches in Virudhunagar" should be rephrased as something like "Nationalised banks such as XYZ have branches in Virudhunagar"; link Axis Bank
 * special gradea – FN should come after punctuation
 * The assembly seat should follow a chronological order and there is no need to re-iterate once every time since year has been provided.
 * Link constituencies and party names
 * 2004 elections.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. Avoid citation cluttering
 * Expand WBM roads
 * The bypass road connects the town to which place?
 * There is nothing mentioned about culture and cuisine; a mention of "Virudhunagar Parotta" could be made.
 * Virudhunagar Parotta is not a notable one, but a subversion of Madurai region's. The ref sources are in negative tone.


 * The first para of "Education and utility services" starts with too many "There are(s)", and the last para seems to have no relevance with the section.
 * Link the work and publisher parameters in refs. Also there are inconsistencies in publishers for eg., "Virudhunagar Municipality" and "Virudhunagar Municipality, Government of Tamil Nadu"
 * The Virudhunagar website (at EL section) doesn't look like an official one, also we normally don't link district websites in town articles; instead add the "Virudhunagar District template".
 * The article had factual inaccuracies and a few issues with respect to MOS compliance. I'll put the nom on hold for a period of one week to see if any improvements can be carried out. Kumbakonam, Thiruvarur and Nagapattinam are good examples to follow. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  09:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have made some of the changes listed above, will complete others by tuesday.Ssriram mt (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have included all leaving the ones commented above. Please let me know for further comments.Ssriram mt (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Further review
 * Infobox leaves out vital parameters such as density, PIN, STD code, etc.,
 * You need to mention how far is it from the state capital or at least the nearest major city.
 * "British Raj" over-linked in lead
 * What do you mean by Madurai region. Perhaps needs an explanation
 * The second para only talks about Madurai's history
 * 6.39 km2 (6,390,000 m2) –> conversion must be made to mile2
 * Majority of the Geography section is unsourced; also refs. should appear like "[6][7]" and not as "[7][6]"
 * The final population of the town in 2001 seems to be 72,081 per the census records. Looks like the municipal website has made an error
 * 17,787 people resided in those slums. Which slum? recognised or unrecognised?
 * The 13 per cent growth in population during the decade of 1961–71 is attributed to the high level of industrialisation during the period, not verified by the source, and the document refers to the density of the town being 114 persons per hectare.

&mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  18:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have included refs and rephrased the items. The district website subpages dont have individual URL - is it fine to leave the generic url?Ssriram mt (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing
 * Sourcing is been major problem with the article. You need to quote each and every claim along with the refs separately. For eg., the third para of Etymology and history section is sourced only at the end. With this problem, I'm not willing to pass this article at the moment. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  10:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * All the four references in the section cover the aspects - i have rearranged them for readability purpose. Do you see any other para that is missing refs? If there are a set of continuous sentences making diff claims from the same source, the ref is added only once at the end of the last sentence. The problem with such small towns is the lack of online English refs. Content addition is highly restricted compared to other bigger cities considering the above.Ssriram mt (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Refs shouldn't appear like [10][11][12][13][14] and [44][45][46][47]. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  15:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Further review
 * been ruled at various times by Later Pandyas, Vijayanagar Empire, Madurai Nayaks, Chanda Sahib, Carnatic kingdom and the British – "Chanda Sahib" inconsistent
 * He was a lone warrior and part of different Empires


 * "Virudhunagar was a part of Madurai region during the 16th century" AD or BC; you've still not explained what is Madurai region.
 * Madurai Nayak Dynastic region


 * I still see minor issues with prose such as missing spaces between words and punctuation.
 * I could see only one sentence in transport


 * "Nawab of the Carnatic" be specific


 * "The town is the birthplace of K. Kamaraj, a freedom fighter" which town?
 * only in the prev sentence "Virudhunagar" is quoted.


 * "The population density was 114 persons per hectare in 2001" – why sudden switch to hectare?
 * thats what the reference provides - i am really not sure if direct conversion would be a right fit.


 * The "Demographics and economy" is filled with loads of insignificant datum.


 * what are they - if it is land usage, IMO that is quite significant.

Check against the criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * The listed issues are limited and I can go on and on. You've put in a lot of work to this article but sorry to say this is not close to the GA standards IMO. Once the issues are sorted out you may re-nominate the article or can go for reassessment if you are not satisfied with the review. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  16:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * All claims are referenced and a GOCE is also complete. While it is not fail-safe, prose issues left from GOCE can be fixed with minor edits. The refs possibly need a rearrangement, which is again subject to discussion. I will have to go back to some physical books to bolster history - but there is nothing notable before the 16th century in the sources that i have come across.Ssriram mt (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)