Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Tamil Nadu

History of Tamil Nadu

Self nom. This article has gone through a peer review. I think this article is a concise and comprehensive account of the long history of the state of Tamil Nadu and documents its rich political and cultural history. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 03:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've been watching this article during the FA drive and feel that it meets the FA criteria and that it's the best single resource on this subject available in the web. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Mandatory disclosure: I did some copyediting of the article.[reply]

Support~~Object~~ Very good except the web based footnotes are highly inconsisent. Strongly suggest converting them to cite php (cite web) format and being consistent (word name for link, access date, publisher, author if known, etc). Rlevse 16:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The web footnotes have been standardised ~~not~~ now. I have also standardised the citation of the author's name for some of the repeatedly cited books. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 23:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Parthi meant "now" and not "not" above. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops again. I think I have typing dyslexia! Thanks Sundar! - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 07:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Web footnotes are better, but not there. All web pages have a publisher. For example, fn 20 should have a "publisher = TamilNation.org" parameter. Ditto for several others.Rlevse 13:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added the publisher info for all the web citations. The offline citations all have the full information in the Reference section. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 22:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great article. citation problems appear to have been worked out. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please modify the footnotes as suggested by Rlevse. The size of the article is big. Can it be condensed to some extent? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations have been fixed. The size of the article reflects its scope. It is in summary style and cannot to easily condenced further. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 23:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the footnotes (such as 36 and 66; there are others) still have issues with being incomplete. There's also a likely typo in footnote 30. The problems are minor, but they're still there. —Cuivi é nen 23:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! missed them. These three issues are now fixed. Pls tell me if I've missed any more. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 23:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very good article, adheres to standards very well, however, someone could consider condensing it, and then merging it with the main Tamil Nadu page... -HuBmaN!!!! 12:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correct, you want a summary of this article to be added in the ==History== section of Tamil Nadu article. Am I right about that? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merging it would be absurd, so I hope that's what he meant. —Cuivi é nen 18:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Sundar. Rama's arrow 17:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support --Blacksun 12:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A well-written article, which provides a good overview of the key points in the region's history. I'll also add that the footnotes show that it's used the standard reference books on the topic as well as more specialised material on specific issues, which really makes it one of the best-sourced articles on Indian history on :en. -- Arvind 12:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, excellent prose, well-reference. Well done! :) - Mailer Diablo 15:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment before objecting. I don't want to object here, but there are obvious citing deficiencies. In "Age of empires (600 - 1300)" most sub-sections are undercited or not cited at all and in the next section "European colonization" there are similar problems. The fact that there are other main articles for most of these sub-sections does not mean that we shouldn't properly cite them. I think that the citations should be added before this article becomes FA.--Yannismarou 18:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~I will add the citations today.~~ - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks much better right now. Now, if you also properly cite "Anglo French Conflicts", you'll have an unconditional support from me!--Yannismarou 09:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 01:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Yannismarou 10:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: It covers the topic in a comprehensive and accurate way. --Bhadani 12:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Excellent article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]