Talk:Madras Presidency/GA2

GA Reassessment

Keeping Review appears to be abbandonned by the nominator and everything appears to have been address or outside the scope of the criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch[reply]
This article does not properly follow Parenthetical referencing i. e. last name of the author with the year of publication. Some of the citations use the name of the book "Provincial Geographies of India". I was quite new to Wikipedia when I nominated this article for GA and I did not know about the different referencing styles at that time. However, the article has been like that since then and no one has thought of cleaning it up. Nor do I have enough time to fix it. Hence I request that this article be de-listed.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 11:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have the major contributors and Wikiprojects been notified? Is your only concern the style of referencing? I am not sure that is a necessary requirement for GA, but if that is the only problem it should be relatively easy to sort out. The article looks to be in decent shape to me. AIRcorn (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have started fixing the issues. All dead/dubious links removed, access date added and page numbers corrected.Ssriram mt (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that dead links should not be deleted except as a last resort. In most cases the presence of dead links are not a reason to delist an article. The correct procedure for dealing with deadlinks is at Wikipedia:Link rot. AIRcorn (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have found alternate book links, which are relatively stable - will fit in those in sometime. Ssriram mt (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections

Image alt

Done

remove promotional references

Done

remove deadlinks

Done

copy edits

Done

convert template

Done

separate section on slavery

Done

Suggest additional missing pieces. Ssriram mt (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An unnecessary section on "Slavery" has been added to the article wholly based on a page or two from some stray source. Now I observe a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. I don't think there was any problem with the text of the article as such. I called for reassessment because of the lack of a standard referencing style. Now, the article appears to be in worser shape than it was previously. While I don't wish to close this reassessment on my own if the section remains there as such, I'd rather support delistment of the article.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 17:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the section alone prevents the GA? Is there other issues that needs a change and can they be listed as well? A secondary opinion can be sought to see if the section stray - 20% population remaining slaves is never undue. As such comments in air like "bad shape" doesn't help things and it actually demeans the effort put in to rescue the article. Ssriram mt (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is not much of textual change effected other than minor grammatical corrections - the major corrections were on convert template and ref structuring! Also a mere search on "Madras Presidency Slaves" returns 17200 book results - calling it undue shows zero search done by the reviewer to pass comments. With blind comments like the ones above, i see no meaning continuing the review/rework. Best is the for the community to answer or this can be closed for now. Ssriram mt (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty obvious that "Slavery" was not a topic of much debate in the Madras Presidency. None of the acclaimed sources - The Provincial Geographies of India, ''Imperial Gazetteer of India, reports of MacLean, S. Srinivasa Raghavaiyangar, Sadasivan's Growth of Public Opinion in the Madras Presidency, Thurston's Castes and Tribes of Southern India or the Madras district gazetteers make note it. While I do agree that some sort of serfdom (I doubt if "Slavery" might be the apt non-neutral word used) did exist in the Madras Presidency just as in other parts of India, it was not so conspicuous as in, say, the United States of America before the American Civil War. Moreover, the section indicates that slavery in the Madras Presidency was almost extinct by the 1840s. In my opinion, a line or two could be added in "Culture and society" which discusses the social issues which existed in the province and the whole section be moved to a new article on Slavery in the Madras Presidency.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 02:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done A new article created and a gist is added in culture section. I buy the point that slavery was not unique to Madras Presidency. But the condition with American case and India's case are entirely different, though the pattern looks alike. India fought independence against British amidst internal split on castes/religion, which was not the case in the US. List out the other parts with timelines for this to be closed. Ssriram mt (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is pretty much okay now. Anyway, I'll have a detailed look when I get time, maybe at the end of this week.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 15:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a ping in case this has been forgotten. AIRcorn (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initially the article appeared to be fine. But on closer look, I could find some issues. A. D. (Anno Domini) has been added after each date in the Victorian period and Indian independence movement sections. I am not so knowledgeable about WP:MOS but I don't think such usages conform to the manual of style. Moreover, the suffix "A. D." has not been uniformly applied all over the article. The paragraph which speaks about Munro's Ryotwari System and the Mahalwari System has very few citations - I observe that an older version was properly sourced but most of the sources have, since, been removed.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 06:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the AD denotion as per Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Dates. Also the Ryotwari reference (8th standard history text book) has been replaced. Ssriram mt (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As in the case of Kumbakonam, the citation style is still not uniform and needs to be fixed.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 03:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some more clarity needed here - When the same book with different pages is used, the short citation is used and linked as in the case of Mumbai. I feel that is how we commonly refer it - as in here?