Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tamil people/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 19:13, 7 January 2007.

Tamil people

Review commentary

Messages left at

India noticeboard, Tamil Nadu, and Ethnic groups

.

• Comment. I did some ref cleanup work (there were three ref styles in use): there are some Harvard style refs, which could be converted to cite.php if page numbers were provided. Two sections have the same heading; need to address section headings per
  WP:MOS. Sandy (Talk) 16:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I know I sound repetitive, but yes, the whole article could do with a copy-edit. Here are examples from the lead:
• "There are also a number of Tamil emigrant communities scattered around the world, especially in central Sri Lanka, Malaysia, South Africa and Singapore, with more recent emigrants also found in Australia, Canada, the United States, and parts of Europe." This thrid sentence has two alsos; the second one could go. Remove ", parts of"
• "was only politically united for a brief period between"—Move "only" to later in the sentence.
• "Tamil identity is primarily linguistic, with Tamils being those whose first language was Tamil." "Was"? So they're dead now? The sentence is circular anyway. Why is "linguistic" linked; the link is irrelevant to the flow.
  • "has been broadened to include also emigrants of Tamil descent who maintain Tamil cultural traditions, even when they no longer speak the language." Ouch: "include also"? And I'd be happier with "regularly" before "speak": no one forgets the essence of their native language.
  • "There are an estimated 74 million Tamils around the world." Why is this stuck at the end of the lead, rather than connected with the third sentence? Tony 13:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some copyedits and I'm about half way through. I will also be adding some inline citations, although I'm not the original author. Please give me a couple of days. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 09:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-->Hi. I took a look at this article. While this article is quite well written, there are some aspects that are either totally missing or are very sketchy. These can be explained in a few lines at least. They are

• Influence of foreign rulers on Tamil architectural styles (especially Vijayanagar mantapa and Yali columns used extensively by Nayakas of Madurai and Tanjore) and the influence of Tamil dravida architecture in Vijayanagara temples(George Mitchell et al)
• There is no mention of Hoysala, Chalukya, Rashtrakuta and Vijayanagar rule over Tamil Country and their contribution to culture (at least a few lines).
• Mention could be made of influence of Sri Vaishnavism from TN on South Karnataka culture.
• Impact of Tamil Language on Telugu by way of Chalukya-Chola rule (K.A.N. Sastri)
• Impact of Sanskrit on Tamil Literature and a paragraph on Tamil secular works (sciences, mathematics, drama, prose, lexicons, encyclopedia etc) and if any of these influence went to other places or came from other locals outside Tamil country.
• Tamil language dialects and their origin/growth/influences. Tamil-Kannada mix languages in the border Nilgiri areas, Sanketi language.
• Tamil attire over ages and changes over time
• Influence of Kannada grammar on Tamil grammar in mid-later classical era (Mahadevan)
• Tamil Cuisine, influences from outside (dosa) and its influence outside Tamil country.

The topic is vast and vibrant and has great potential.Dineshkannambadi 16:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please get some clarification from the reviewers? This FAR has been initiated to address the valid concern on the lack of adequate inline citations, which I'm trying to address. While Dinesh's suggestions are valuable and valid even, are they within the scope of an FAR? Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 03:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Is Dinesh questioning the comprehensiveness of the article? He should state that clearly, because that may be a more valid point in FAR. However, my point of view is that, in

Iluvar

), cuisines, attires could be mentioned. A rather interesting aspect can be presented if some info on the genetics of Tamil people can be obtained.

However, these are all suggestions. Main concern in FAR is lack of citations, and need of copyedit (as pointed out by Tony). None has questioned the comprehensiveness so far. I would suggest (and not demand!) that besides providing citations, just add a few senences on attire, cuisine, and society (that should not be much problem, as lot of articles on these topics already exists). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I have gone through and copyedited the article for style and consistency. I have removed a couple of claims for which I couldn't find any supporting citations. I will trim the History section as there is already a comprehensive History of Tamil Nadu and then I will add some info on cuisine, society, etc. Can I requst other editors to jump in and add any information they can? Thanks in advance. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 09:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-->I was only trying to emphasise that some information regarding interaction of Tamil people/culture with other people/cultures should also be included, as this undoubtedly has enriched both ends.ThanksDineshkannambadi 13:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply--> Fair enough. In fact the point I made about mixed languages implied tribal langages of the "Soligas" etc.Dineshkannambadi 18:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made further copyedits and added citations. I have also added a paragraph on Tamil dialects. Can you please take another look? Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 03:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work going on in this article. IMO, the lead should be slightly expanded so as to summarise the scope of the article. The lead lacks a mention of the Tamil culture which occupies a good part of the body of the article. I will go through the article some time later. On a gross look, it seems that the main concern in the FAR (lack of inline citations) has been addressed. The other concern (need of copyedit) - don't have any idea yet. The culture portion may still be shortened. Anyway, I'll comment more later on. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment-->The dialects section looks better. The Irulu tribe of TN are unique (Hope I spelt it right) in that thay are traditional snake catchers who have changed their life styles significantly. Nowadays they actually help in preparation of anti-venom by supplying snake poison to various clinics that prepare anti-venom.Just a thoughtDineshkannambadi 15:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now address all of

Irulas. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 23:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment Many of the footnotes still need page numbers, and there are still two sections with the same heading. Someone needs to run through the entire article. Sandy (Talk) 10:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I have changed the headings according to

WP:MOS and there are no duplicated headings now. I have also updated the inline citations according the sources I have. As I'm not the original author, I had to use the sources I had instead of the original references. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 23:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Status? Improved, leaving talk page notes asking Tony1 (talk · contribs), Dwaipayanc (talk · contribs), and Dineshkannambadi (talk · contribs) if concerns are addressed. Sandy (Talk) 18:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply All my questions and concerns have been answered.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 03:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Editors worked hard during the FAR. The main concern of this FAR was lack of inline citations. Now the article has a number of inline citations providing verifiability of many facts. During the FAR, some citation needed tags were placed which were promptly attended. So, IMO,
    WP:WIAFA criterion 1c has been met in this article. However, another user raised question on WP:WIAFA 1a (well-written), and pointed out need of copy-editing. I'd like to request him about his opinion now. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Comment Most of the images on the article have questionable licensing, and one particular user keeps reverting copyvio tags that I pointed out. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive68#User_reverting_image_copyvio.2Fno-source_tags. First the images issue needs to be addressed, the FAC removal issue can then be considered. ­ Kris (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: All the images used in this article have appropriate licenses. If you have specific concerns on any image, please follow the procedures detailed in

WP:COPY. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 03:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This is also relevant to the above comment by Srkris. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 04:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just see the history of all those image pages. I have even indicated where they have been lifted from and why most of them violate copyrights or provide no source information. It cant be clearer than that. ­ Kris (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations and prose. Marskell 06:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not 100% to close this early. This can move off quickly if people are happy with it. Marskell 06:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors has begun a copyedit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep, has now been cited and copyedited; appreciate the help from the LoCE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For the most part, the prose looked fine while I was copy-editing. Gzkn 08:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.