Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ilaiyaraaja/archive1

Ilaiyaraaja

 * You may be looking for a different FAC: See sorting old FA archive errors.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I submit this A-class article for evaluation as a potential Featured Article. This article has gone through peer reviews. My reasons for this submission are as follows:

1. This article is (a) fairly well-written, to my eyes at least. The prose flows smoothly, is structured logically, sentence structures are simple and easy to read (not convoluted). It is (b) comprehensive: it covers all important facts about this music composer (why he is important, what his contributions are to the body of music, details of his early years and career, the characteristic of his musical style, his major works). This article is (c) factually accurate: factual statements are meticulously cited from reliable published sources that include academic journal articles, academic book chapters, a university research thesis, and major newspaper articles. These are laid out in a Reference section (please see). It is (d) neutral: it does not glorify its subject nor does it contain a point of view weighed against or for the subject. Biased views and unsubstantiated claims contained in previous versions have been omitted.

2. This article complies with Wikipedia's recommended layout for FAs, i.e., it has, inter alia, a succinct lead section that adequately encapsulates the subject matter; it has a properly organised headings system; the table of contents is concise and sufficent.

3. This article contains a photograph. More, and better photographs are desired that fulfill the copyright requirements of Wikipedia, and this is an ongoing process.

4. It appears to have a fair length for a feature encyclopedia article (although it could be expanded). It is approximately 2,300 words long excluding the References and External links sections.

A constructive evaluation and consideration process would be appreciated.

With regards, AppleJuggler 05:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Object - Almost there but it needs a bit more cleanup; notably images and grammar. The only image in the article is lacking a source, has an improper fair-use tag and is scheduled for deletion. The discography is much nicer now that its been pared down to size.  The article appears very well referenced.  There are a few problems with grammar and verb tense-agreement - for instance, "He has been pivotal in the shaping of South India's film music landscape in the late 1970s and 1980s."  There's also a few superlatives which may indicate a bit more cleaning up is needed to NPOV the tone - things like "most gifted", "veritable singer", "grand scale".  Some of these may not need changing though since a look at the impact of his career shows that he was influential in many respects. Shell babelfish 06:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fixed up some of the things that you've pointed out. Will review article fully to ensure grammar is sound throughout. Will also proceed with fleshing out the article along the lines that we discussed about. AppleJuggler 07:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I can't say that it really seems comprehensive. It's rather short for someone who seems to be so very notable. I also don't think it's appropriate to cite Wikipedia as a reference. 04:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Appreciate you going through the article. I've replaced the Wikipedia reference with the primary source of information (see reference no. 3 in the article). I agree that the article requires some expansion. Will be working on it (pls see Discussion page To-do items #2a,b,c and d). AppleJuggler 07:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. POV issues in the lead, and some other sections (e.g. impact of his career). Not comprehensive. Where does he live, for example? More about his family (considering that many are composers in their own right)? No picture. Cribananda 00:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. Could you perhaps help highlight what POV issues in the lead that you are referring to please? Your explanation would be useful in fixing up this article. AppleJuggler 07:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. I have changed those parts of the lead that I thought were eulogistic. May be I have over-done this, but I hope you get the idea. On another note, how about a picture? Cribananda 08:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)