Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chennai/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 19:38, October 17, 2007.

Review commentary

 * User:Sundar‎, User:Nashcode,‎ User:Brhaspati,‎ WikiProject Cities,‎ Noticeboard for India-related topics‎, User:Rigmahroll notified

I guess this article was promoted to FA under the old guidelines. Sadly, it fails to measure up to the present guidelines. I feel it fails at least the first three criteria. There are several issues with the article including sourcing and several prose issues. In my opinion it needs a lot more work to be counted among the best on Wikipedia. Sarvagnya 04:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment While I do feel that the article needs some work toward improving its lead, redistributing prose into roughly equal sections and paras, and a thorough copyedit, I do not agree that it merits bypassing a discussion in the article's talk page and going for a review. Also, I'd request you to provide specific examples to help understand the problems. I'll devote some time in the next few days copyediting the article and request everyone interested to help. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding the citations, I feel it can be worked upon. Regularizing the existing citations (that is providing all the info available for a citation, preferably in a template) will do a lot of help. I have started working on this aspect. Also, it would be helpful if "citation needed" tags are put. I request the FAR proposer and others to put such tags. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Gave the article a quick once-over. Prose (as in language) seems largely OK. Citation neededs can be worked on or rephrased to avoid making unverifiable (or tall) claims. Review process more suited to talk page than FAR. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 03:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The so-called problems in the article are not beyond rectification with discussions in the article talk page. I feel the FAR request is unnecessary. There is nothing seriously wrong with the prose or the verifiability. Tagging practically each sentence smacks of disruption. Parthi talk/contribs 05:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with the other comments, the concerns should've been brought up first in the talk page rather than go for an FAR without any discussion anywhere. In any case: the article needed references, which have now been provided, for the most part. Lotlil 13:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Defeature a.s.a.p. ...while the total metropolitan population was 6.4 million. The estimated metropolitan population in 2006 is 7.6 million. Is this a joke or is this a joke? The article also does not seem to bother to make any distinction between the Chennai district and the Chennai metropolis. A note about Saurashtrians (and Saukarpet) financing history may be included. Anwar 19:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article actually says this: As of 2001, Chennai city had a population of 4.2 million, while the total metropolitan population was 6.4 million. The estimated metropolitan population in 2006 is 7.6 million. This sounds clear enough to me. And, why should the article talk about Saurashtrians, when nothing is being said about Telugus, Malayalees, Kannadigas, Marathi people, Gujjus, Rajasthanis and so on? Lotlil 20:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, another Anwar-gem. Add that to long list of random but mandatory Anwar fart on India-related FAR/FARC/FAC.--Blacksun 20:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * More comment Cited references need structural formatting. Retrieval date, as far information on publisher etc as possible. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm guilty of adding many citations in the non-template format, I did that because it seemed to use a lot less bytes than the templated version. But, I just retested this theory with a few sample citations and I'm not so sure now. I'll go ahead and standardize the refs with templates, we can then decide whether the article is too bulky. Lotlil 16:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The references are fixed now. Thanks. Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, there are still very substantial WP:MOS and copyedit issues in this article; an independent copyedit is needed, there are many WP:MOSDATE issues, and references are unformatted. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * References are formatted now. I will request a cpedit from the experts once the content issues (raised in the review below) are fixed. Thanks. Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - A review and list of concerns... in no particular order really.
 * half the lead (the sister city stuff and all) doesnt belong in the lead.. or even perhaps the article itself.
 * Moved sister cities to Culture and the National park info to Geography. Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * the climate stats box is overkill for this SS article. has gaudy colouring too.
 * I think the stats box can stay in the article, but I've made it appear collapsed, by default. Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * most of the pics are of very poor quality (b'natya, luz corner, usman road, tennis court). the maps in the geography section also look weird.  A map making(svg) expert should be able to consolidate everything in the rail network map which is good.
 * Removed luz picture and one of the geography maps. The rest of the pics looked ok to me, just needed some resizing to fit well with the text. Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * pics need to be to the right as far as possible.. too many pics to the left of the text.
 * This is fixed now. There are still a couple of pics on the left, but I think they look better there. Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * After trimming down the sections, I had to remove pics on the left due to space constraints, anyway. No pics are on left now.Lotlil 23:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * sources - some of the sources like worldwar1.co.uk, chennai-madras.com, madurainews.com, racehorseowners.com, freemeteo.com, world-gazetteer.com etc., look very suspect and may not qualify under WP:RS.


 * "detroit of asia" is pov and UNDUE. who else other than the IT secy has called it so?  it is not a well known sobriquet like Garden city/silicon city (in case of B'luru) etc.,.  that apart, not really sure if being a detroit is anything to be proud of considering detroit's own withering fortunes.
 * Detroit of asia was not mentioned in the text of the article. It appears in a reference as the title of the news report. Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * hmm... i guess it was in the article(perhaps the lead) when this was first brought to FAR... but was removed soon after.. certainly was gone by the time i wrote the above comment. my bad. Sarvagnya 08:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sports section needs a complete makeover... for instance, "The stadium is famous for its list of records, including the first ever test match victory that India recorded in 1951–52 when they defeated England, the second of only two tied tests between India and Australia in 1986 and Saeed Anwar's 194 in 1999 which is still the highest ODI score by a batsman." doesnt belong in this article at all.  Sriperumbudur and sholavaram are not Chennai.
 * The cricket records do belong in this article in my opinion as they're important milestones in Cricket's history. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 17:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether the records should stay or not. It's fine either way. We can surely remove it, if you insist. Sriperumbudur is a part of the metro area (we talk of all the hardware companies in this area under Economy). What other aspects of the section needs to be fixed ? Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Trimmed down the section (to about the same size as when this article became an FA, 2 yrs ago) and forked off many of the details, including the records, into a sub article.Lotlil 23:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * s look better at the top of the respective sections.
 * Fixed. Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * child articles required for each section. create them if they dont exist.
 * The important sections already have child articles (History, Geography, Economy, Culture and Transport). Media, Demographics, Education and Sports don't have one, I'm not sure if this is a requirement for FA. The other Indian cities FAs don't have child articles for these sections either. Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Though I don't think it was necessary, I added sub articles: Education and Sports. Lotlil 23:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * of most concern is that almost all child articles are poorly sourced and badly written. Ideally, each section should just summarise a well written and comprehensively sourced child article.
 * Well, it may be true for some sister articles, but is not a FA criterion AFIK. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 17:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are claims in the main article that are unsourced neither there nor at the sub-article, that's a concern. But I didn't see many such cases. Lotlil 23:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * economy section is a mess. too many names of companies thrown in.  tafe and ti cycles dont belong in the same league as hyundai(which has a huuuuge plant in chennai and was one of the earliest of the new age MNCs to enter madras) or MRF (which has a history with madras).  foxconn who?  virtusa who? naza automobiles who?  try and get a better source than citymayors.com for exceptional claims like "fifth largest GMP" (i dont doubt it myself.. but feel that a FA needs to be sourced better in crucial areas). "Chennai was recently rated as having the highest quality of life among Indian cities ahead of the other three metros and Bangalore, based on the "Location Ranking Survey" conducted by ECA International." - eca intl., who?  source? relevance to economy section?
 * I agree with this. But, I guess this is fixed now. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 17:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this section needed some work, I've done some fixing up. Let us know if there are further concerns. Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Administration section - Nanchil kumaran doesnt belong in this article. I am not sure Utility services subsection belongs in this article at all... atleast not in its present form.  right now it reads as if its target audience was a new migrant to chennai looking to get cable and internet.  either remove it altogether or melt it down and recycle it into other sections.  names of MPs dont belong in this article.
 * Added table of officials. Cable tv moved to Media. The rest look ok to me. Lotlil 23:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Water subsection - in the context of water supply to madras, telugu ganga project is too important to be left red. also if i am not wrong, desalination projects have been in the works for over two decades.  so the line needs to be removed or reworded and at the very least, sourced.
 * Fixed. Lotlil 23:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * did a random ctrl-F for "Parry's corner"; couldnt find it. From what little I know of Chennai.. it sure belongs somewhere in this article.  ditto with mount road.
 * Good catch. I tried to fit these two into the text, though may not be at their most optimal places. See if it looks ok. Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

hmm.. this much for now. But the article still has loads and loads of problems. plenty of MoS issues. Plenty of sourcing issues. Plenty of weasel/peacock/pov issues. And the prose is way below par for a FA. requires several rounds of copyediting. I'm afraid I cant support retaining its FA status yet. Sarvagnya 04:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Culture section - "This unique cuisine is replicated in many a Madras Cafe in other parts of India and the world." draws too much attention. Not to mention, the second half of the section is completely unsourced.  amazingly, the Madras Music Academy fails to even find a mention in this article.  cut down on a 'roll call' of new age software companies and please add institutions and organisations and where possible people that really have a history with the city.  for example, I'd rather Kumaran and Nalli saree shops be mentioned than infosys and wipro.
 * I agree. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 17:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Culfest" sounds too weird to even be a neologism. Sarvagnya 08:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it would've been useful and helpful if this list was posted when it was requested by almost every commenter so that the issues can be fixed. (Not that I agree with all of the above objections. Nanchil Kumaran does belong here given that he is the incumbent CoP. Doing random Ctrl-F for specific strings and not finding them is no review at all.) And some other issues mentioned above have been fixed now. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 13:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I leave it to Lotlil to update the status regarding the issues that are already fixed. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 17:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good review. Thanks. I will try to address the remaining comments (the ones I haven't replied to) in the next few days. Once the content issues are behind us, we can request an independed cpedit for prose and MoS issues. Anything you can point out before that, would help. Lotlil 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Most concerns have been addressed. I still need to remove the few questionable sources and also add citation for one paragraph in the Culture section. Lotlil 23:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Status: Should this go down to FARC? Work can still continue there. Marskell 16:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the criteria for moving from FAR to FARC is, so I'll let the others speak up on that. Most of the concerns raised so far, are addressed (except some possible MoS issues). Would help if someone takes another look at the article to say what more needs to be done. Lotlil 23:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), and referencing (1c).

Comment: Just moving it down to get greater clarity on whether people feel it's up to speed. Marskell 10:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's in pretty good shape. Definitely still among Wikipedia's best. If any of the above identified items can be further addressed that would be great. A few more things that would also help are the last paragraph of the lead and the last paragraph of the history section particularly need to be expanded. The space devoted to various time frames should be approximately even. There's got to be at least one or two more important things that have happened since 1914 that could balance that out and make a cohesive paragraph. Also the economy section just covers the large corporations without discussing what most of the people are involved in economically which isn't properly balanced. In general the article looks pretty good though as those are relatively minor points. - Taxman Talk 03:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to identify significant events that happened in Chennai during that period. States Reorganisation Act perhaps altered the boundaries of the areas currently under the Chennai Metro area? If so, I'll dig up some sources related to that. Are the recent issues around proposals to move the secretariat and the Kannagi statue notable enough for a mention here? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sundar, I don't think the proposed move of the secratariat is notable enough (at least until the move actually gets approved and starts materializing). Same with Kannagi statue. Lotlil 13:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had my doubts about them. By the way, I was referring to the controversy surrounding the earlier proposal by the Jayalalitha government to move the secretariat. On second thoughts, that too is not notable for a summary article. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I still think that there are substantial issues with the article, particulary prose and sourcing (for sourcing concerns, seem my comment in FAR). The prose has more than a few redundant sentences(for example 1st sentences of the 2nd and 4th paragraphs of the "Transportation" section are essentially the same) which ought to be ironed out. The media section is too listy and talks nothing about the birth of different kinds of media in the city. For example, which was the first newspaper? When was the first radio station established? Who has the largest circulation? etc.,. The economy section has too many names and too little facts and figures. Also, not sure if "under construction" projects need to figure in the section just yet (they havent started contributing to the economy already, have they?). There are more such issues in almost every section. At the very least, the article needs some serious copyediting for prose and flow. Will try to add more comments in a couple of days. Sarvagnya 05:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am not understanding the above editor, Sarvagnya's, overt hostility and sarcasm toward this article demonstrated throughout his many comments above in FAR. Are not the comments, suggestions etc. supposed to be constructive, or at the very least, neutral? Although not all comments on FAC articles are ideal, I have never seen this level of negativity before on FAC and do not understand what the goal in being so antagonistic. The article is not as faulty as many I have seen go through FAC without such belittling comments.  -- Mattisse  21:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am not understanding the process here. I would help out with the copy editing, but I cannot make sense of what is going on. Maybe I am not supposed to enter in here and am out of place, that only designated editors are supposed to enter in. -- Mattisse  21:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Mattisse, can you please spell out what you find overtly hostile or negative in Sarvagnya's review? Come to think of it, I agree with him that this article still needs some work.. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪   walkie-talkie 05:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Mattisse, you can obviously comment here. It would be great if you helped with copyedit too. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have copy edited several FA articles, including a few for India. However, I looked through this article and did not see any glaring MoS "breach" errors. Could someone point them out to me? I am not clear what is in dire need of fixing. (Content, of course, I cannot address, except to note that it is admirably concise.) It seems well organized. Perhaps Climate and Water could be merged. If someone will point out to me the problems I would be willing to try to fix them.  -- Mattisse  12:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, Mattisse. Could you give the article a quick read through and see if the prose or flow needs work anywhere? Lotlil 13:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thought I think not. I see India admins are involved. -- Mattisse  17:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I concur with User:Mattisse. This FARC was raised on frivolous grounds. As my comments at the start indicate that none of the issues of the article are not beyond fixing with some civil discussions on the article talk page. I cannot fathom the continuing antagonistic and disruptive comments by Sarvagnya. Parthi talk/contribs 04:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In general I find that most outdated FAs only get improved, in this case refs, when they are put in the firing line. Many other FAs, such as India, lack citations even though there are 5x more people on the talk page discussing the lack of citations and agreeing that it is missing and nothing is happening. So in general, it seems that tagging articles with fact or sending to FAR is the only way of extracting improvement in many cases, even though it can be seen as a testy tactic.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 06:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Single subsections should go. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nichalp, I've merged the lone subsection "Utility services" into its parent. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There still seems to be unnecessary information floating around. I've removed an "aka". Other trivia include the caption of the image "venue of the tied test" etc. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Article in better shape. I am commenting keep hoping the following would be taken care of (1) Remove the subsection "Water". You can add a gist of this subsection to utility services. (2) If needed, create a separate section on "climate", rather then giving it a subsection status under "geography". (3) Can get rid of some names in Economy section, as indicated above by Sarvagnya (4) One image is listed for deletion. (5) Further copyedit, which Mattisse and others are doing. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lotlil and others have fixed almost all the content and referencing issues. Dwaipayan's above comments have been fixed by prose refactoring. Economy section perhaps needs some more work, but those are minor. Taxman's admittedly minor issue regarding post-1914 events is not fully addressed, but that period had far fewer events worth mentioning related to Chennai. Will add some as we find. Finetooth from the League of Copyeditors has given a thorough copyedit on my request. As it stands, the article is in a very good shape, still among the best of Wikipedia. Minor issues will be ironed out in regular course. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Referencing problems:I checked the sport section and only the Chepauk and the Chemplast sentence are fully sourced. The hockey stadium sentence is partly sourced and tennis sentence is partly sourced. So In all, there are only 2 +0.5+0.5=3 sourced sentences, the rest need to be sourced. The claim that the cricket is the main sport is the headline sentence and definitely needs to be sourced, just in case it might be a non-average place where soccer or hockey are the most popular. If this lack of sourcing is a general trait of the article, then it should not be an FA. Also, many of the references are not fully filled in, some refs have authors and publication dates listed but not filled in.  Blnguyen   ( bananabucket ) 03:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * References have been provided for all but one (which you say is needed "just in case") of the facts pointed out above. Those were either common knowledge or easily verifiable. They have references now, nonetheless. How do you say it's a general trait? After a staggered release schedule of issues with the article by Sarvagnya which were fixed from time to time, you're bringing these minor issues up at the end of the review and claim that it's a general trait. Neat. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the reason I said "just in case" is because the fact that cricket is the most popular sport in India does not imply that it is the most popular everywhere. In Australia, Australian rules football is the most popular sport, but in Sydney and Brisbane, rugby is 5-10 times more popular. Hinduism is the most popular religion in India but there are some states and districts and cities where it is not. Even still, when I came in today, the Venkat and Srikkanth from Chennai claim was not sourced, Lillee is not the MRF director as claimed, and the fact that the Nehru stadium can be used for multiple things is not sourced, nor is the fact that the golf courses were 19th century nor the fact that the people listted like Anand etc actually do come from Chennai. So it is not correct to say all references have been provided because they are demonstrably not.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Each sentence does not need to be cited. Cricket in India and rugby in Australia aren't even a close comparison. If any Indian city claims some other sport to be popular, that's what needs to be sourced. Venkat and Srikkanth have their own articles whose references show they are from Chennai. Same with Anand. And, no, their roots to Chennai aren't contentious. One can question every single sentence, for the sake of doing so, but that would just be a waste of everyone's time.Lotlil 02:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Even the lone remaining fact has a citation now. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, that is because not every sentence is tagged. To do so would seem disrespectful, which is why people have not tagged every single sentence, because it would not be correct to treat you as though you are a child and that everything needs to be pointed out one by one. It is a given that when the FAR was started on grounds of lack of sources, then there is an understanding that a lot of info is unsourced. The reviewere (FAR or FAC) does not have to spend 4-5 hours checking every single sentence and example of a non sourced sentence and tag every single one of them; it is unfair expectation since the person who wants to claim the FA star is responsbiel for its well being; it is also demeaning to the people responsible for the article to engage is finger-wagging every single thing like a headmaster embarrassing a kid in front of the class. The prevalence of unsourced info was there at the start and it remains now. I did not get around to checking all of hte article and only did that one sample. By the theory of statistical sampling, the fact that 70% of that section is unsourced is a bad omen for the rest of the article.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just curious, what percent of an article should be cited explicitly, for it to be an FA? According to you, it's apparently over 30%, should we attempt to measure a few FAs (even recent ones) against this criteria? Lotlil 02:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ideally, 100% and definitely > 90%. Other wiki articles are not RS.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 02:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't pointing to other wiki articles to be used as a source. Venkat's article explains, among other things, that he is from Chennai. It cites cricinfo as the reference (the same source you have added to the Sport in Chennai as a reference). My point was, as long as a reader can reasonably verify questionable claims using wiki-linked terms or sub-artciles, we should be fine. It would be disruptive to cite every sentence in a main article. Anyways, out of curiosity, I looked up a recent India FA - Karnataka. It's  Education section has 13 sentences (many with multiple claims) and a total of 5 sources. So 8/13 sentences are unsourced, i.e., over 60% is 'unsourced'. I'd be surprised if any of the 1000-odd FAs measure up to your high standards! Lotlil 02:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just counting the number of fullstops, the article has 316 lines with 85 inline citations—a citation for every 3.7 lines. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that section has been fixed. It would be helpful for the purposes of this exercise if you could indicate whether you actually think that citations problems are a general trait of the article or not - obviously, as you say, if they are a general problem then the article should be defeatured, but from you comment it isn't clear whether you think it is, and if so why. -- Arvind 13:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * continuing from above, I went on to check the next two sections from the bottom up, and in the education section, only about 10% of hte article is in the sources attached and in the media section only about 30% is sourced. At FA level, that is not good enough. Delist .  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The arguments you've provided for delisting the article are completely gratuitous. With this purely quantitative method of fact review, random statement can be questioned merely because they don't have a citation close enough to them. It's one thing to demand that truly controversial, counter-intuitive or highly obscure facts be cited, but questioning their veracity by merely being ignorant of them borders on the disruptive. Footnotes after almost half the sentences in an article makes Wikipedia look stupid, not more credible. Peter Isotalo 02:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually most articles that were written on teh run and not referenced properly have quite a few problems from inacurate or semi-accurate info. In any case, this article has improved a lot, so keep. Good work.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * De-feature - the article was using many non-RS sources, something that I had pointed out weeks ago. They were still there and I've removed and replaced them with fact tags.  Few other problems also remain.  Cannot support at the moment.  Sarvagnya 06:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Many of the fact tags that you've added now have been replaced with proper citations. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And it would be very helpful if you could let us know what the other problems are. Just saying "defeature because other problems" remain isn't a particularly helpful comment in a process such as this. -- Arvind 13:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * De-feature - This article was featured two years ago, so it's obvious that lots of things happened to decrease the quality of the article from the featured level. Some considerable number of fact tags are still remaining. So I too cannot support at this moment. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  |  tool box  10:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was promoted two years ago, yes. But, quality issues have been fixed from time to time, more so recently. The "considerable" number of fact tags is five of the tags added a few hours back by Sarvagnya. Those facts are minor enough to be even removed if we don't find citations in a day. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you could point out exactly where the article is below featured level quality - it strikes me as a little odd to say that an article isn't at FA quality because it doesn't provide a citation for the newspapers published in the city (which, at the moment, is the only out standing fact tag, in relation to which see also my comment below. -- Arvind 15:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I found that there are five {fact} tags in the article. One is in the lead concerning consulates, one is in Geo and climate which is about elevation and highest point, one is in the administration section which deals with CDMA and the other two in the Media section, dealing with sentences on Chennai newspapers and radio stations respectively. Apart from these five remaining fact tags, it would be helpful to know what specifically are the other issues that this article needs to address? GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 12:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is now one tag in the article, and that is for the list of newspapers.  Does this even need a citation?  A quick look at other featured articles about cities shows that most of them tend not to provide sources for the names of the newspapers that're published in a city, but only for circulation figures, rankings, and other such things. -- Arvind 15:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Some problems that I see ** The city has a long-standing and thriving motor sports culture. This is a POV or needs a substantial citation. ** No citation exists for the motor tracks mentioned ** Viswanathan Anand resides in Spain, he no longer resides in India. Sentence needs to be changed.
 * Sports Section:
 * What is meant by Other athletes of repute from Chennai include Chetan Baboor, as far as I recall Chetan Baboor always used to play for Karnataka and PSCB. Does he reside in Chennai? Is that what this means? In any case, citation is needed.
 * Good catches, thanks. I've fixed the bits about the racing and Viswanathan Anand.  I have no idea about Chetan Baboor - if nobody adds anything by tomorrow, I'll take him out. -- Arvind 23:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've provided citation that says he's a product of PSBB (Padma Seshadri), a Chennai school. He played for PSCB while being employed at Bharat Petroleum (I believe in Chennai too, I will find a link for this later, if needed). In any case, I added his name ahead of another famous TT player from Chennai, S. Raman. If you insist we can remove Chetan's name and add Raman. Lotlil 20:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * When Chetan was not playing for his employer, he used to represent Karnataka, as seen here. Since he does not seem to relate himself to Chennai, I am not sure if his name should be there. Any how, Sharat Kamal's name is already there, which should suffice as far as table tennis is concerned. Please add Raman's name if needed, since that is more relevant -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 05:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed Chetan. He was a Kannadiga, yes, but I don't think he played for K'taka (in fact he apparently represented TN in sub-junior and junior level, before moving on to represent his employer). But, this is a minor detail for this article, I agree that we can let go of his name.Lotlil 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Lotlil, just to get the facts right. He did represent Karnataka as seen here. In fact, I had the privilege of being one among the audience who watched the exact match that is being talked of in the article, live in the stadium. -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 11:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

** Some info on the history of media (newspapers and like), will make this section better. Currently I see it as containing only a list of names.
 * Media section:
 * Done. Lotlil 20:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

** The city has plans for an underground Metro - citation needed. ** The Gemini flyover, built in 1973 over the most important arterial road, Anna Salai, is a well-known landmark in the city.. What does this mean? Is it a heritage site? Is it so significant that it supercedes may be other important landmarks in the city? Just a comment since I did not see the significance of it... ** ''Vans, run like bus services and popularly called Maxi Cabs, also ply many routes in the city. Hired transport includes metered call taxis, fixed rate tourist taxis and auto rickshaws.'' - The grammar is confusing, can we use simple English please. ** The rail network is broad gauge. - This small sentence, can be clubbed with many of the sentences in the section and would look neat
 * Transport section:
 * Done, mostly - but I actually didn't see the problem with the sentences you've cited in your third point, so I've left them as they are. -- Arvind 23:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Have modified third sentence myself, let me know if there is any issue... -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 02:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

** Local bands play music in many styles. Of course, they will. A city with such a population will have diversified music. The sentence is very generic and does not convey much
 * Culture section:
 * One way to fix this sentence that Amarrg has pointed out is by mentioning what the "many styles" are in the form of examples. "Local bands play music in many styles including ..." Otherwise, it is better to remove it altogether. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 00:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * REmoved sentence. Lotlil 20:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A personal opinion is that Chennai does deserve much more in the culture section. I see absolutely nothing on literature

** Where are the numbers, where are the financial figures? Some data please... You cannot have an economy section with just text in it
 * Economy section:
 * Added some income, employment and export numbers. Lotlil 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

** Chennai is the third largest commercial and industrial centre in India - This sentence is vague. The citation shown seems to be an off-hand remark. Does this mean in terms of the workforce or in terms of the contribution to GDP or in terms of the number of industries present here? Can we have some clarity please...
 * Lead in:
 * Redid the lead a bit and removed this sentence. Lotlil 19:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

** Tamil agitation against Hindi needs a citation
 * History section:

** Is that weather averages table really needed? It would be better to move it to a sub-article; as without it, the article looks neater and the table will no way affect the FA status anyways...
 * Geography section:
 * Removed. Lotlil 20:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

** Just a thought, I see that there are lot of names like Airtel, Vodafone etc... being mentioned here. While this is OK, it is also prone to abuse with people adding names as and when there is a change, degrading the general look and feel and thereby the quality of the article. This requires a lot of maintenance as well. As an example, in the recent round of mobile licences, more than 10 companies have applied afresh. If nothing is done, names of all these companies who are granted licences for Chennai will slowly start appearing in the article. Ideal way would be to move names to a sister article and keep the quality of the main one intact
 * Administration and utility services:
 * Done. Lotlil 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

** making it a preferred destination for medical tourists from across the globe - Is a POV
 * Economy
 * The ref was in the sub-article. The ref (from Govt. of India) actually says it's the largest hub in S. Asia. I was toning it down by saying it's "a preferred destination". Please feel free to modify, if needed. Lotlil 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Have changed it in the article to sound NPOV -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 17:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

** Most common treatments sought by the tourists include heart surgery, neurological procedures, cancer treatments, plastic surgery and orthopaedic procedures. - This is POV and needs a good citation.
 * The ref was there in the sub-article. Moved it over, now.Lotlil 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

** This section needs more citations. I see only 6 citations for a section that contains more than 20 sentences
 * All numbers, claims etc. are cited. If a sentence is uncited, it most likely has wikilinked terms or a sub-article that cites it. If you find any that needs explicit referencing, let me know.Lotlil 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Demographics
 * making it one of the most densely populated cities in the world - This needs a citation.
 * Provided ref for the density numbers. wikilinked "densely populated" to a global list to clarify the point. Lotlil 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Global list is nomed for deletion, so an appropriate better citation may be needed -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 17:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That article wasn't nomed when I wikilinked it 2 days back, but it seems to be now. Provided another citation.Lotlil 19:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Lotlil, refs are fine. One small problem though. The population and density figures mentioned in the Infobox dont match the ones in the article. Also total population figure in infobox is 4.35 million where as that of the Metro in the infobox is 7.5 million, is that correct? -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits
 * Yes, the figures are correct. The city's population was 4.34 mil as of 2001 census (the infobox said 2006, which was wrong) and the metro area (which is chennai city+other suburbs) was 7.04 mil. as of 2001 census. The 2007 estimated population of the metro area is 7.5 (according to the Hindu article).Lotlil 16:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

** The last paragraph needs more citations
 * Removed linguistic communities and added migrant info, with refs.Lotlil 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

** This section lacks citations -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 02:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Transport
 * Some references have been added from sub-articles, pl. take another look and see if any specific info needs to be cited.Lotlil 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove—1a, unless copy-edited. I looked at just the lead, which is likely to be better than the rest.
 * "Considered the automobile capital of India, Chennai is home to a major percentage[6] of the country’s automobile industry." Can we have the reference number at the end of the sentence? Disrupts the flow when shoved into the middle.
 * "second-largest" and then "third largest".
 * "and is a base for the manufacture of hardware and electronics, with many multinational corporations setting up plants on its outskirts." Clumsy prose. Try "and is a base for the manufacture of hardware and electronics in many plants owned by multinational corporations on its outskirts."
 * "the Bharatanatyam, a classical dance"—Check whether it's a classical dance "form" or, perhaps, "genre".
 * "The city faces problems with water shortages, traffic congestion and air pollution."—Overuse of "with" in such a role. "Of" would be better here.
 * How do mini-flyovers address water shortages? Tony   (talk)  13:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reformatted the lead a bit and fixed the prose/grammar issues you've pointed out. Bharatanatyam is a dance form and I've corrected the statement. Thanks. Also, the lead says the city's problems are water and traffic and they are being addressed by the Veeranam project and mini-flyovers. The Veeranam project addresses water and the flyovers address traffic.Lotlil 19:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Too much work has been done not to keep this, and I don't see why it can't be. Can we have some comment on the last prose and citation concerns? Marskell 20:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment
 * Education - a handful of fact tags still remain. The first paragraph on education is entirely uncited.  Also, there should be information in the education section which traces the birth of modern education, who the pioneers were, when were the first school/college/universities started, what is the literacy rate... how many educational institutions exist.. in short, as much info specific to chennai as possible and not just generic info that could be a part of Tamil Nadu article.
 * Moved references over from the sub-article to here. Added info about total # of schools. The sub-article gives details of when each notable institution was started.Lotlil 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Demographics - population density is uncited. Madras bhashai is entirely unsourced cruft and we have a sentence riding wholly on it.  In the last sentence, Kannadigas, Sindhis, Marwaris, Gujaratis okay.. but anglo-indians, punjabis, bengalis, UP and Bihar?  I am not so sure.  A citation will help.  Also afaik, kannada population is on par with atleast the malayalam population.  In fact, Kannada population form about 2.5-3% of TN's population and all of them are concentrated either in Coimbatore area or Madras.  That would mean that their numbers in Madras are on par with atleast malayalees and i dont see why they should be bundled with anglo-indians and punjabis and bengalis!  A citation(preferably one giving percentages) will help clarify these things.
 * Removed linguistic communities and madras baashai (I remember taking this out once recently, somehow this has made it back). Added migrants info.Lotlil 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Transport - citations required for the figures mentioned.
 * Moved citation from MTC article.Lotlil 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Media - instead of a numbing list of channels, pipelink them to a List of TV and radio channels in Chennai or some such (or maybe an appropriate section in Media in Chennai) and free up space to mention that the Sun TV network, headquartered in the city is one of India's biggest media houses etc.,. How can that notable fact about media in chennai not be mentioned?  Get rid of the frequencies of the long list of FM channels... those frequencies belong on advertising billboards.. not in a summary article.
 * Done. Lotlil 19:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Inane and context-less sentences - I fixed a few such sentences in the course of my edits here (examine my edits in that window and the accompanying edit summaries). The article has more such disjointed sentences which are just thrown in there without context.  Not all of them are insignificant and need not be removed.  But they need to be reworded and put in context.  And citations should be added where necessary.  Sarvagnya 21:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Updates: Almost all issues seem to have been resolved. Can people update their comments/votes based on the improvements made? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * Maria Irudayam was twice World Champion. Mentioning it would be better than the current "only Arjuna awardee".
 * Anand is now THE World Champion. Tintin 09:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed. Lotlil 16:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. The references need some clean up and completion; I will start from the bottom of the article later today.  Perhaps others will note the type of edits I make, and start with similar from the top of the article.  Can someone please fix this?
 * Madras itself is etymologically derived from Madraspatnam, the name of the site chosen by the British East India Company for a permanent settlement in 1639.[clarify]
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up references in the bottom half of the article; the top still needs to be done. It's apparent that citations were added by many different editors using several different styles. Sometimes cite web was used for The Hindu, sometimes cite news; sometimes publisher was used, sometimes work, often dates were missing, sometimes titles were wrong, sometimes publishers are missing.  I hope someone can finish the ref checking and cleanup to the consistent style now in place for the bottom of the article.  I added a clarification needed on a statement that said "about eight"; is it eight or is it not? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Completed the top half of the ref formatting. The refs all look consistent now. I've removed the statement ...about eight papers, there are more than eight papers/magazines (which are listed in the section). Lotlil 22:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Plenty of good work has gone into the article in recent weeks and I'm confident remaining issues(mostly prose) can be ironed out in due course. Great work by Lotlil in particular. Changing my oppose to keep... wanted to do this few days ago.. but was tied up with RL. apologize for the delay. Sarvagnya 07:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Keep - Excellent work by Lotlil on this one. -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 10:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.