Wikipedia:Peer review/TamilNet/archive1

TamilNet
Tamilnet is a controversial but an essential news website that is a source of information on the current Sri Lankan civil war particularaly from minority Sri Lankan Tamil perspective. It is used extensively by the BBC, Reuters, AP and others as a source. There are controversies associated with this web site. Would need peer review on WP:RS and WP:NPOV on this article RaveenS 18:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

RJHall

 * There are too many one-paragraph sections in the body, making the table of contents longer than is needed. Please consider consolidation, or else try to expand the content. There are some issues with the citations and the placement of punctuation. (Punctuation should preceed the citations.) You've also got double-punctuation (.[5].) in one instance. Finally the "Media view" section has an extra blank line. &mdash; RJH (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have taken care of the puntuation issue, [image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done.RaveenS 19:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I took care of the one para sections too. [[image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Thanks RaveenS 14:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Media review extra line [[image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done

Black Falcon

 * I can offer three suggestions and one comment. The first suggestion is to replace multiple citations of the same reference with "terminated empty ref tags" ( ) as detailed here and as implemented with the first two references here (an arbitrary example). Although this will not affect the appearance of the article to readers, it should make editing easier in the edit window. The only drawback to this method is that editors must be vigilant not to delete the one instance of the reference that does contain the full citation details (it's alright to move the full citation, but deleting it will render the other terminated empty ref tags useless). My second suggestion is to avoid over-citing in the main text. For instance, every sentence in the second paragraph of the "Perceptions" section is cited to the same source. I think it would improve the article's appearance to instead have one citation at the end of the paragraph. This is, however, only a general suggestion and should be considered in light of this article's particular circumstances (for instance, it may be necessary to cite every single sentence to deal with serious content disputes). My third suggestion is to be consistent in referring to TamilNet throughout the article (including the title). Is the correct name TamilNet or Tamilnet? The comment I have pertains to the first paragraph of the "Modus operandi" section. It does not read as neutral and I cannot think of a way to make it so. The only thing I can suggest is to move the quote by V. Sambanandan into the "Perceptions" section, delete the first paragraph entirely, and considering renaming that section to "Operations" or "Background" or something similar. I hope I've helped. Cheers, Black Falcon 19:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Multiple citations replace with ref name terminator -[[image:Yes check.svg|20px]]Done
 * Over citation of the main text -[[image:Yes check.svg|20px]]Done
 * Change title to TamilNet and use it throughout -[[image:Yes check.svg|20px]]Done
 * Move Sambandans comments to Perception section - [[image:Yes check.svg|20px]]Done
 * Delete first paragraph - [[image:Yes check.svg|20px]]Done
 * Rename section to Operations - [[image:Yes check.svg|20px]]Done

Sharz

 * I only have two major issues with the article. The first is the poor intergration of setences, it is quiet visable where a user has added a paragraph, and another user has tagged on a setences, for example in the first paragraph, "Tamilnet is considered to be pro-LTTE", perhaps that could be better integrated into another sentence, or the spacing between the paragraph and that line be removed. My second issue of less importance is that, are all the cat's possible included? --Sharz 23:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove space - [[image:Yes check.svg|20px]]Done RaveenS 14:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dont understand the second concern ?RaveenS 14:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well simply, are all the categories for the article possible there? --Sharz 23:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest ? RaveenS 12:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Krankman

 * I find nothing wrong with the article. NPOV, short, good.
 * I just don't know what the last sentence about Karuna's alleged connections to the government has to do with the topic TamilNet. Krankman 14:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove sentence - [[image:Yes check.svg|20px]]Done