Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Travancore Tamil Nadu Congress

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Travancore Tamil Nadu Congress

[edit]
(
)

Created by Gfosankar (talk). Self nominated at 12:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC).

  • Date and size are fine. But there are just too many grammar errors, some sentences are missing a verb, in others the subject is not clear. The hook is probably fine, as the last few sentences mostly seem to support it, but the article needs grammar copyediting. After this is done, I'd like another reviewer to look at this and see if it reads better. Please tell us here when the grammar has been improved. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I will C/e the article. Soham 15:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • C/e done mate. Soham 15:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid your copyedit seems to have made the article more incomprehensible. -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Long enough, new enough. QPQ done. The article doesn't appear to be particularly neutral, with the first line in the body mentioning discrimination without sufficient NPOV or support from the references. The prose is still in need of a copyedit. Regarding the hook, p244 of the cited text doesn't seem to support it. The other reference doesn't support the first part of the hook either. C679 09:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I rewrite the section and fixed the refs. --Gfosankar (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but "pp. 244,135,130" is not acceptable referencing. If there are three different pages supporting three different facts, you should use three separate references. Please address this. C679 11:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Separate references added. --Gfosankar (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • A marked improvement. However there still seems to be an element of original research to the hook. Article's grammar is still sub-standard. C679 18:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Cloudz, the article is not in GAR or FAR process, it is in a DYK. In my humble opinion I think other than the hook original research issue there should not be a problem with grammar. This article uses Indian English which is different from Czech English. So I request you to consider that while reviewing. Soham 14:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • @Soham: I think you are being [censored(in French)] unfair to Cloudz. In my humble opinion, the prose was certainly in a dialect of English – I know that only because none of the words turned red from my browser's built-in spell-checker. And which dialect could only be established from contextual clues. It would have helped if the use of prepositions in whatever [censored(in French)] dialect used in the article was in line with more banal codes of English. I have done a copyedit according to my understanding of the article and its sources. Kindly vet to see that I have not made any translation errors in the course of my work. And I fail to see how [censored(in French)] Czech English is relevant to the discussion. I believe Piotr is Polish, and probably would have understood Cz English. Pardon my French ;-) Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Ofc, thanks for cooperating, can you be a bit more specific as to where the prose is incomprehensible. I would definitely try to clarify it.

    Oh, Cloudz is Czech (Prague), who took over from Piotrus so I think it does have an impact on the review. Soham 15:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget the biggest impact on the review is the editor(s) responsible for writing the content. In the future you would do well to Comment on content, not on the contributor. C679 17:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I would apologise for the facetiousness of my remarks above, although I don't believe they were entirely unwarranted. The problems were pointed out to you by two editors, and were manifestly present while you went on to criticise one of them saying that this is in Indian English. There is no longer a need for you to "clarify", except if I have introduced any factual errors. I've now fixed most of the problems. It seems that these may have been introduced in this series of edits, not all provided clarification or an improvement in grammar. Kindly review my changes. As I said above, I suggest that you work on your use of prepositions. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Er, no. Although Cloudz can probably say "Dobry den!" and "Na Skledanou!", I don't believe Cloudz is Czech AFAICT. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Standard English will enable the most viewers around the globe to read the article. Non-standard dialects should be treated with great caution. Tony (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Noted, Tony, Ofc I am learning the ropes from Gareth Griffith Jones, I reviewed your edits and it seems as if the problem has been solved. Oh BTW Tony1 you wrote WP:1A right? Soham 14:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • First line: "The Kingdom of Travancore, a princely state in India consisting of a majority of ethnnic Malayalees and a Tamil minority, which suffered discriminatin in education[1] and employment." no main verb; this is not a sentence. Also contains spelling mistakes. Next sentence: "Their political actions led them to form several political parties" Their used as a pronoun to refer to one of: i) The Kingdom of Travancore, ii) a Tamil minority, iii) something else. No comment on my nationality per WP:PRIVACY. Basic grammar and spelling are not a matter for GA class articles and above. I believe that articles appearing on the main page should conform with basic rules of grammar and spelling. As far as I can tell, sentences without a main verb and the spelling "discriminatin" are not acceptable in any version of English. C679 16:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Additionally I think the article is still not sufficiently neutral per Wikipedia:EXCEPTIONAL; the claims of employment based discrimination are sourced to a single personal correspondence. Further, The Hindu doesn't seem to adequately support the claim of education based discrimination against this particular group. If this discrimination was so commonplace, let's see sufficient referencing. Thanks, C679 17:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • When I last edited the article there were no typos (not a sp. mistake), and it was introduced with Ofc's edit and Ofc being a user who knows what he does I trusted his revision blindly (which if you read through the entire part was my biggest mistake). That is for the typo being labelled as sp. mistake. Now I agree with you that there is was no main verb in the last version I edited, practically due to my habit of losing my spectacles every now and then. The situation got worse when Gfonskar attempted a rewrite, then again after Ofc's c/e. My time in wiki getting shorter by the day I didn't get a chance to scan every other edit like an x-ray which led to this state of the article. Thanks for pointing it out.

    On a different note you should consider reading the policy WP:PA 'cause if I called you a [censored(in French)] *****le then it would constitute as a PA not otherwise, again I commented on this review (your work) and not on you as a person. Oh! Above all I should recommend you to WP:PRESERVE and remind you that wp is not a battleground. Soham 18:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

  • NPOV concerns remain. Once those have been addressed I would like an uninvolved editor to make the decision about if it should be promoted. C679 19:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I have introduced a ref, this one is from The Hindu too but what to do? Seems like it is the only WP:RS that has written on the topic. There is another Hindu ref and one book cite. Seems to manage the issue. Soham 07:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Has the article been rewritten already? If not, I can rewrite it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Rsrikanth05, looking at the article history it hasn't been rewritten, and looking at the article, it definitely needs a good copyedit at a minimum. Please do rewrite it, and if you find neutrality issues, please also address them. Many thanks for getting this moving again. Any further review should wait until you're done; please post here when you think it's ready. Do you have any idea how long it might take you? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I can rewrite it in a few days at most. Will strt work now. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Editors above did not seem to be doing any rewrite or copyedit. I have now copyedited it, revised some claims to reflect the sources, and added additional sources. Feel free to check my work. It is long enough, the hook is cited, there are no POV issues now that I can see, and it should be good to go. hamiltonstone (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Travancore_Tamil_Nadu_Congress&oldid=1019995058"