Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of Tamil Nadu/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by User:Dana boomer 12:50, 6 November 2013 [1].

History of Tamil Nadu

Review commentary

Notified: Venu62; automatically listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tamil civilization/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tamil Nadu/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Article alerts

I am nominating this featured article for review because...the article has been rated FA in November 2006 and I find a lot of issues in the article.

Lead

Firstly, the article claims that "Tamil Nadu has been in continous habitation from 15,000 BCE to 10,000 BCE" but the source provided does not support the claim.
The following sentence is poorly organised and incoherent.

The region of Tamil Nadu in modern India has been under continuous human habitation since prehistoric Madras from 15,000 BCE to 10,000 BCE as its old existence controversy after mass destruction the land is reduced both in geographical and people.

The lead comprises of three paragraphs but has only one citation.

Overall, the text in the lead is poor. The phrase "History of Tamil Nadu" has been unnecessarily bolded in the third paragraph

Rest of the article

"Age of empires", "Maratha influence" and "British government control" and "Independence struggle and" appear to be bad choices for section headings. There was a Thanjavur Maratha kingdom which ruled over Thanjavur. Nizam is used in the plural - there was, indeed, a Nizam who ruled over Hyderabad in present-day Andhra Pradesh but he never tried to extend his dominions into Tamil Nadu and it is doubtful if there was any part of Tamil Nadu which was included in his kingdom. As far as nawabs are concerned, there was only one particular Nawab who ruled in Tamil Nadu - the Nawab of the Carnatic, later known as Prince of Arcot.

The sub-section "End of company rule" is completely unsourced.

The Maratha invasions of Tamil Nad are mentioned in the section "Maratha influence" as well as the second paragraph in "Rule of Nizams and Nawabs".

I am not sure is newsreporter.in, facts-about-india.com, fathom.com and omniglot.com can be considered reliable sources.

Overall, the text is poor. The article needs a complete rewrite, otherwise, I don't think it is worthy enough to remain an FA.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 05:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment - Transcluded by User:Dwaipayanc at 18:14, 13 September 2013. Ravichandar, please notify interested projects and major contributors. Has any of the above changed since last April? Dana boomer (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any significant improvement between April 10 and now. User:Ravichandar84 seems to have semi-retired.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note — Leads generally don't need citations, because they're a summary of the article's content. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include referencing, prose and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Sadly, I don't think there's any way to salvage FA status at this point. Resolving all the problems here would fail the article on stability grounds. It simply has not kept pace with the tightening of FA criteria. The references alone are a mess: many aren't reliable, formatting is beyond inconsistent, there's even at least a couple bare URLs. Pair that with some dubious prose and even unreferenced passages, and this article needs to be stripped down and rebuilt before it would satisfy current FA criteria. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Insufficient density of citations - numerous unreferenced paragraph - quickfail criteria for a new nomination.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. No improvement since nomination. Does not fulfill FA criteria, as outline above by other users.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Dana boomer (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.