Wikipedia:Peer review/Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu/archive1

Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get general feedback on how to get this article move to a Featured article status.

Thanks, -- Car Tick  04:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: You have indicated that you would like feedback on how to get this article to FA status. I have not had time to study the prose in line-by-line detail, but a quick readthrough and scrutiny reveals a number of issues that need attention:-
 * There are several disambiguation links that need fixing. Go to the toolbox on the top right of this page, click on "disambig links." That will reveal what needs to be fixed.
 * The images all need alt text. If you have problems dealing with this, let me know and I'll help. If you haven't done so already it may be an idea to look at WP:ALT
 * The images may be public domain in India, but for free use on Wikipedia they need to be PD in the United States. Generally this means they need to have been published before 1923, which is obviously not the case here. You need to establish, with the help of an expert image reviewer, whether these pictures are PD in the US under some other criterion.
 * The lead needs to expanded into a summary of the whole article rather than a brief introduction.
 * Section headings
 * Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest in lower case uless they are proper nouns or form a title. Thus "Government response" not "Government Response". (and others)
 * Avoid beginning section titles with "The..." unless this is part of some formal title." Hemce, "Day of Mourning" not "The Day of Mourning" (and others)
 * Some subsections are far too short to be freestanding, e.g. "Riots in the North". They should be incorporated into the sections.
 * The repeated use of quotation boxes, even for short quotes, is disruptive to the smooth reading of the article. Short quotes should normally be incorporated into the text. Longer quotes (100 words+) may be in blockquotes - I have converted the first two long quotes in the Government response section to blockquotes so that you can see what needs to be done. But the majority of your quotes are not long enough to justify using blockquotes.
 * I notice that some sections are in bullet-point format. This is very much frowned on for potential featured articles. These sections should be converted to prose.
 * Reference formats
 * On-line references (Nos 1, 38, 42 etc) need access dates.
 * All references need publisher information
 * Ref. No 1 goes to a page that appears unrelated to the topic under discussion
 * No 3 goes to a "Not Found" message. There may be others - please check
 * Odd points
 * The quantity 1635 should be written 1,635, 1200 should be 1,200. Check for others.
 * Consistency in spelling required; at present, for example, you have "organizers" (American) and "organisation" (British). It makes sense to stick to Brit spellings (you have adopted British date style), so please check for spellings such as "favor" etc. "Normalcy" in BritEng is "normality".
 * "climbdown" is a single word, not two.

All these issues need to be addressed. The prose doesn't seem at all bad, but probably needs the attention of a conscientious copyeditor. A most interesting article, well worth some further effort to take it towards FA. Maybe GA as a transitional stage?. Brianboulton (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks brian for the review. i will incorporate the comments.--Sodabottle (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * According to Public domain, In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world[1] is in the public domain and If the work was in the public domain in the country of origin as of January 1, 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S. (Even if it was published after 1923, but only if no copyright had been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.). That would mean File:Nehru Gandhi 1937.jpg, File:Rajaji1939.jpg and File:Jinnah Periyar ambedkar.jpg though are in public domain India now, they were not in January 1, 1996, and therefore, not in United States now because US does not follow the rule of shorter term. If it is not in the public domain in U.S, it can not be used in wikipedia. too bad. looks like we need to delete all these images. hope my assessment is correct, pls correct me if i am wrong. -- Car  Tick  00:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * correct assessment for File:Nehru Gandhi 1937.jpg and File:Rajaji1939.jpg. But File:Jinnah Periyar ambedkar.jpg has been released into PD by the periyar kazhagam (if we switch to wikiality123's version), for all purposes. That means PD in US too. So we can use that as it was released into PD and not lapsed into PD. --Sodabottle (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * that is correct. permission from the copyright holder, in this case, periyar kazhagam should be fine. -- Car Tick  04:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using cite news, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
 * Magazine titles need to be in italics also.
 * Current ref 51 has the title of the journal and the issue number in the link title. Should be broken out to have an author, title of the article, journal, volume and issue, and page numbers. Also for current ref 52, 66, and 80
 * What makes http://www.sangam.org/2009/09/Anna_Centennial_3.php?print=true a relialbe source?
 * what makes http://www.dmk.in/ahindi.html a reliable source?


 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Brianboulton comments -Tick Response to Brianboulton comments - Sodabottle
 * Sodabottle and I have re-written the lead.
 * I have removed two images which are in public domain in India but not in US. I have replaced the third image with a duplicate image (permission for use here had been granted by the copyright holder). -- Car Tick  21:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed disambiguation links
 * Added Alt Text to remaining images
 * Changed Section headings to confirm to MoS per Brian's comments.
 * Short subsections have been eliminated and their contents incorporated into other subsections
 * Reference formats 1) access dates added 2)publisher information added for all online refs 3)ref no 1 is citation for no of languages in India, source for general background for the article 4) fixed dead links in citations, verified all others
 * Odd points 1)number format fixed
 * Quotation box issue fixed
 * Still to do : 1) British English conformance ) bullet points to prose conversion--Sodabottle (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * all Fixed by User CarTick by 10 dec

All suggestions/issues raised by Brianboulton now incorporated/fixed --Sodabottle (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Ealdgyth comments - Sodabottle
 * Fixed Magazine and Newspaper titles using cite news and cite web templates as suggested by Ealdgyth --Sodabottle (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed Indian Recorder and Digest in journal format. Indian Review (by Natesan and Co) is an annual year book and not a journal. Similarly India Today (by living media) is also an annual year book and not a journal. So they are left as such with cite book template
 * What makes http://www.sangam.org/2009/09/Anna_Centennial_3.php?print=true a relialbe source?
 * This has been backed up by another book now. However, this has been used as a source not for "what happened" but for "why they claimed they did it". Since the "they" in question is the DMK party, and sangam.org link is a lecture by Sachi Sri Kantha (a scholar with multiple Gscholar hits, BUT in another field) which quotes from a primary document of the DMK where they defend their actions. "What happened" has been sourced from a reliable source (scholarly work). And "what they claimed" has been sourced from DMK's own publications of that time period (now backed up with other scholarly work from Anthem press). --Sodabottle (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * what makes http://www.dmk.in/ahindi.html a reliable source?
 * Same as above. This has been made the source for "why they claim they did it". As this is the official website of the DMK party this has been used as source for their "claim". Now it has been backed up by two more sources (one recent newspaper article and another journal article from the same time period) plus the legislative assembly proceedings discussing the . As in the above case "what happened" has been sourced by other RS including books and newspaper reports.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

All comments/issues raised by Ealdgyth incorporated.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)