Talk:Tiruchirappalli/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I've now had a very quick read of the article, but I've not checked any references, etc. Based on this superficial reading, my initial impression is that this is probably a GA-class article.

I've now going to start a more detailed review, section by section but leaving the WP:Lead until last. At this point, I'm mostly going to highlight "problems", if any. So if I don't record very much about a particularly section/subsection in this part of the review, that means that it is OK. I would like to have this review finished by Tuesday (10th May) and that is when I will stop reviewing. If the review is not finished by then, there will be a nine-day gap. I'm sorry, but that is how it will be. Pyrotec (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the problems appear to be relative "trival" and should be easy to fix.

Etymology -

Looks OK.

History -

A minor point perhaps, but ref 12 here is cited as a web site, article title, publisher, and has an access date (all correct), but it also has an author who is not cited. It may not be a WP:Reliable source but as there are three citations, I will not purse the WP:RS route.

Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC) - Notes 16, 17, 19, 21, etc refer to various pages in "Aiyanger", and I had trouble finding the reference. The "problem" is that some of the Notes are using a Harvard-type citation i.e. author-surname (or author-family-name) but the references are listed as Christian name surname (or given-name family-name), year, title, publisher, etc, so the corresponding reference is S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar. This is also true of Note 5: i.e. "Footprint South India" but its corresponding reference is Robert Bradnock, Roma Bradnock (2000).... There aught to be consistency between Notes and References.[reply]
Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC) - Notes 26 and 26, etc, use K. R. Subramanian, the same as in References, i.e. this is not a Havard-type reference.[reply]
Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC) - Notes 22 to 25, refer to pages in Madurai Nayaks, but I can't find any "match" in References.[reply]

Done -The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 19:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It much improved. Pyrotec (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geography and climate & Demographics -

This two section look OK. Pyrotec (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Culture and society -

~~Ref 77 is merely listed as "TTDC - Places"~~ Fixed: problem was due to typo in {{Cite Web}} template. Pyrotec (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 78 is an article from The Hindu, but the source is not acknowledged - missing field in {{Cite Web}} template.

I've fixed it.-The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 06:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Economy -

There are various references using on-line editions of The Hindu; ref 93 (Market to be shifted ) is missing the publication date, and most if not all are missing the "|accessdate=" field in the {{cite web}} template.
Web Ref 109 is missing a publisher and "|accessdate=" field.

Done -The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 04:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transport , Administration and Politics & Education -

Generally, these three sections are OK: all of them make use of web citations and the comment above about the lack of the "|accessdate=" field is also applicable here.

Pyrotec (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done -The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 04:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... to be continued later, but nothing too serious found and so should make GA-status this time round. Pyrotec (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Education, Media & Utility services -

These three sections are OK.

WP:Lead -

A resonable introduction and "tight" summary of the main points covered in the body of the article.

Pyrotec (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Units

It says "area of 18 square kilometres (6.9 sq mi)" with links to the units. Links to common units are excessive and should be removed.

Lightmouse (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done -The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 19:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Looks fine to me now. Lightmouse (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An interesting, comprehensive, well-referenced, well-illustrated article on Tiruchirappalli.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing a fine article on Tiruchirappalli. Pyrotec (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]