Talk:Virudhunagar

Untitled

Nice work. Good to read about Virudhunagar

c.murugesan

I am From Virudhunagar

by K.Karthik

Geography and Business centers

What was the reason for removing these 2 sections(geography, Business centers) on 16th jan from i-p address 80.194.100.111?

J mareeswaran (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Virudhunagar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Krishnaprasaths (talk · contribs) 05:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I will be taking on this review. It will take me a day or two to get to it. --@ツ KrIshnA^{(ping me)} 05:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• This article has lots of issues with the quality of the text. For example what does "the sex ratio of the town stood at 1015". 1015 what? Men to women? "was established in 1915 during British times as a third grade municipality". What is a third grade municipality? Any links? "The Virudhunagar municipality maintains a total length of 78.923 km (49.040 mi)". 78km of what? Roads? Paved Roads? The whole article is full of these things. "The topography is almost plain". What does this mean?... I can go on but I think you get the picture. There is not even any climate data, which is standard on city pages... Mattximus (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly recommend Fail based on the lack of thorough review and the concerns listed above and many, many more. Would love to see this article back after these issues have been addressed. Mattximus (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• This was unfortunately a drive-by first-GA review by an inexperienced editor that was supposed to take "a day or two to get to" yet was completed in 26 minutes. It would have been far more useful to have a review by someone who knew what GA-level articles are supposed to be like.

Mattximus is correct in assessing that this is not GA quality: it does not have prose near to the well-written levels required for GA articles. The number of misspellings alone would disqualify it, let alone the quoted problems above. I strongly recommend that the author request a copyedit from the Guild of Copyeditors before resubmitting this article for review. For now, regardless of what the template below originally showed, this is not being listed as a good article. I have accordingly made two edits to the template to reflect the final status. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Good overall. Below required level.	Fail
(b) (MoS)	lead+ layout+ weasel+ fiction n/a lists n/a	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	good and well organized.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Sufficiently cited.	Pass
(c) (original research)	Not an issue here.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Wide, informative coverage.	Pass
(b) (focused)	Relevant and appropriate throughout.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
OK	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Seems ok, many small edits, No edit wars, etc.:	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	No problem.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	good.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Fail	[Original problematic reviewer:] An enjoyable, detailed and informative article. [Addition from closer:] Does not meet GA standards. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Virudhunagar/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vensatry (talk · contribs) 14:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'll be taking up this review. Will post the comments in a day or two —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.Ssriram mt (talk) 01:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

• The prose is still weak for eg., "Virudhupatti, is the town" and there is no space between a period and the sentences that follow in a few places.
• What's an "A grade municipality"?
• "Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu from 1954 to 1963 and recipient of Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian award" seems too much for a lede.
• Name the temple in the infobox
• There is almost nothing about the history of the town

The town is notable in sources only during the period of late British Rule. I am really not sure if the regional Polygar history be included here.

• The Geography section is unorganized, with majority of them unsourced. For eg., the area covered by the municpality should go to the top and conversion should be from km2 to mi2

I am missing the ref here from TN website, will fit it in shortly.

• Lead and infobox mentions the population of the town as 72,081 while the demographics section says 73,003, although the male-female population put together gives the correct figure.
• "99 people constituting 0.15 per cent" 01.5 percent of what?
• Why is population density calculated on the basis of hectares
• The second para of the demographics section seems totally irrelevant

The region classification cannot strictly come under demographics, also not in geography. For industrial/agricultural classification, the data gives a quick snapshot and thought of including it.

• Source for the population chart indicates as 1961-2001
• "The agricultural output of the town is limited because the local geography" you need to be more specific
• "All major nationalised banks have branches in Virudhunagar" should be rephrased as something like "Nationalised banks such as XYZ have branches in Virudhunagar"; link Axis Bank
• special grade^a – FN should come after punctuation
• The assembly seat should follow a chronological order and there is no need to re-iterate once every time since year has been provided.
• Link constituencies and party names
• 2004 elections.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. Avoid citation cluttering
• Expand WBM roads
• The bypass road connects the town to which place?
• There is nothing mentioned about culture and cuisine; a mention of "Virudhunagar Parotta" could be made.

Virudhunagar Parotta is not a notable one, but a subversion of Madurai region's. The ref sources are in negative tone.

• The first para of "Education and utility services" starts with too many "There are(s)", and the last para seems to have no relevance with the section.
• Link the work and publisher parameters in refs. Also there are inconsistencies in publishers for eg., "Virudhunagar Municipality" and "Virudhunagar Municipality, Government of Tamil Nadu"
• The Virudhunagar website (at EL section) doesn't look like an official one, also we normally don't link district websites in town articles; instead add the "Virudhunagar District template".

• The article had factual inaccuracies and a few issues with respect to MOS compliance. I'll put the nom on hold for a period of one week to see if any improvements can be carried out. Kumbakonam, Thiruvarur and Nagapattinam are good examples to follow. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 09:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I have made some of the changes listed above, will complete others by tuesday.Ssriram mt (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have included all leaving the ones commented above. Please let me know for further comments.Ssriram mt (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Further review

• Infobox leaves out vital parameters such as density, PIN, STD code, etc.,
• You need to mention how far is it from the state capital or at least the nearest major city.
• "British Raj" over-linked in lead
• What do you mean by Madurai region. Perhaps needs an explanation
• The second para only talks about Madurai's history
• 6.39 km2 (6,390,000 m2) –> conversion must be made to mile²
• Majority of the Geography section is unsourced; also refs. should appear like "[6][7]" and not as "[7][6]"
• The final population of the town in 2001 seems to be 72,081 per the census records. Looks like the municipal website has made an error
• 17,787 people resided in those slums. Which slum? recognised or unrecognised?
• The 13 per cent growth in population during the decade of 1961–71 is attributed to the high level of industrialisation during the period, not verified by the source, and the document refers to the density of the town being 114 persons per hectare.
  

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I have included refs and rephrased the items. The district website subpages dont have individual URL - is it fine to leave the generic url?Ssriram mt (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing

• Sourcing is been major problem with the article. You need to quote each and every claim along with the refs separately. For eg., the third para of Etymology and history section is sourced only at the end. With this problem, I'm not willing to pass this article at the moment. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

All the four references in the section cover the aspects - i have rearranged them for readability purpose. Do you see any other para that is missing refs? If there are a set of continuous sentences making diff claims from the same source, the ref is added only once at the end of the last sentence. The problem with such small towns is the lack of online English refs. Content addition is highly restricted compared to other bigger cities considering the above.Ssriram mt (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Refs shouldn't appear like [10][11][12][13][14] and [44][45][46][47]. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Further review

• been ruled at various times by Later Pandyas, Vijayanagar Empire, Madurai Nayaks, Chanda Sahib, Carnatic kingdom and the British – "Chanda Sahib" inconsistent

He was a lone warrior and part of different Empires

• "Virudhunagar was a part of Madurai region during the 16th century" AD or BC; you've still not explained what is Madurai region.

Madurai Nayak Dynastic region

• I still see minor issues with prose such as missing spaces between words and punctuation.

I could see only one sentence in transport

• "Nawab of the Carnatic" be specific

??

• "The town is the birthplace of K. Kamaraj, a freedom fighter" which town?

only in the prev sentence "Virudhunagar" is quoted.

• "The population density was 114 persons per hectare in 2001" – why sudden switch to hectare?

thats what the reference provides - i am really not sure if direct conversion would be a right fit.

• The "Demographics and economy" is filled with loads of insignificant datum.
  

what are they - if it is land usage, IMO that is quite significant.

Check against the criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• The listed issues are limited and I can go on and on. You've put in a lot of work to this article but sorry to say this is not close to the GA standards IMO. Once the issues are sorted out you may re-nominate the article or can go for reassessment if you are not satisfied with the review. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

All claims are referenced and a GOCE is also complete. While it is not fail-safe, prose issues left from GOCE can be fixed with minor edits. The refs possibly need a rearrangement, which is again subject to discussion. I will have to go back to some physical books to bolster history - but there is nothing notable before the 16th century in the sources that i have come across.Ssriram mt (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)