Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chennai

Chennai
Metropolis in south India. A lot of editors have worked on this article including anons since March this year.


 * Nominate and support =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:59, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. The reference section is not correctly formatted. The footnotes should go under "Notes" and the actual sources used should be summarized and under "References". / Peter Isotalo 10:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Done =Nichalp   «Talk»=  11:02, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Disclaimer: I have contributed to this article. I believe that it is provides a good overview of the topic in optimal detail, and that it has remained free of major controversies. While I believe that this article meets all the criteria mentioned in What is a featured article, I support it chiefly for being comprehensive (including images), accurate, stable and uncontroversial, thereby demonstrating the benefits of collaborative editing. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 20:55, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Lavishly illustrated and seems very comprehensive. I for one had no idea that Chennai/Madras was so large. Lisiate 23:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Support A comprehensive article on this subject. I also thank Brhaspati for taking the initiative to add content to this article, Nichalp for carrying it forward to this stage and scores of other editors to have edited this article and the articles leading from here. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:19, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Definite support. Good job! -shuri 15:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Support: Very well presented and comprehensive article. - Ram (59.92.97.89)


 * Support: pamri 10:35, August 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I think the history section needs more about the history of the city past 1945. There's almost none apart from the name change. Also, the current problems should be merged with the rest of the article.  Páll  (Die pienk olifant) 16:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Post-1945 history has now been expanded. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 03:45, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Current problems have been merged with the rest of the article. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 04:06, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Much better, however I would also like to see some print references.  Páll  (Die pienk olifant) 12:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * would the books listed under ==further reading== suffice as print references? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:58, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I generally don't like further reading sections. I'd prefer for them to be incorporated into the references themselves. Also, while the expanded history is good, I'm sure that more has happened in the previous 50 years than just that one event in the 70's.  Páll  (Die pienk olifant) 13:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The books part has been merged. As for the history section, I'd leave to the other editors to deal with. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * What is mentioned is only the notable stuff that happened in Chennai as a city. Most other events were not connected with the city in particular, but involved Tamil Nadu as a whole, and are therefore not appropriate in this article. The language riots and the separatist violence (which happened much after the 1970s) have been the most notable aspects of the last 30 years. Chennai has been relatively quiet in terms of political activity other than these two issues. Most of the changes have been in the economy and social life, neither of which merits inclusion in the history section. Minor events may of course be added to the separate article History of Chennai. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 02:19, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Brhaspati. Events after independence are not notable enough to list it here. The history section is a highlight of key events in the city's history. It shouldn't have to mention events every decade. I hope this is a satisfactory solution? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you still hold an objection on this article over such a minor point? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. While I consider this a good article worthy of being an FA, there is a fairly obvious overuse of footnotes. I know there has been somewhat of a footnote fad as of lately with people believing that "inline citations" are not only synonymous with footnotes, but they are required for basically any kind of statement, no matter if it deals with very controversial and complicated issues disputed by the general expertise in the field or just simple, easily verifiable figures. Footnotes can be fairly disruptive to a text and inserting them merely to explains exactly where simple, undeniable fact like the geology of Chennai, recent name changes or how many buses that are used in the city have been procured in the reference list will only add to the article looking overly academic. Footnotes are not intended to state the obvious; this is what the actual article text is for. Any statement which is not controversial, complicated or hotly disputed (by credible sources) should not have a footnote, or at least be replaced with an . / Peter Isotalo 15:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * But, unfortunately, such simple facts like "no of districts", "area" etc., are often subjected to fact vandalism. To avoid this, we need to cite sources. However, I agree that the citation can be something other than a footnote. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 15:36, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I doubt that most fact vandals ever bother to read sources, but otherwise this is a good example of a problem dealt with by using an . Anyone who would be willing to actually check a source would notice the inote and refrain from fiddling with the article. Vandalism should not be dealt with in a manner so to effect the readability of the article, as overuse of footnotes does. This is making it more comfortable for ourselves at the expense of our much wider non-editing audience which is something I feel is quite unacceptable. And we are citing sources, just not right next to the statement, but rather in the "Reference"-section. / Peter Isotalo 17:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that there footnotes can be disruptive, and wholeheartedly support your statement; but could you point me to the correct page where it is mentioned not to use the footnote style for inline references? I think I may have missed this page. I would like to clarify the differences between the two. Thanks. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:32, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * There's nothing specifically stating we can't use footnotes for references, but Cite sources has a good summary of what "inline citation" means. There's also Footnotes, which is a sub-page of our manual of style. / Peter Isotalo 18:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Inote work done. You should have mentioned the inote work in the beginning. It would have saved me extra work. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry for causing the extra work. I would've gladly done it myself had I only had in-depth knowledge of the article and the subject. Objection stricken. I now support the article. Good work, everyone! / Peter Isotalo 21:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)