Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Kumbakonam/1

Kumbakonam

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Listed All concerns seem to have been dealt with and no new questions have arisen. This has been open for a few months and no one else seems interested in commenting or closing it so I am taking the initiative. I could arguably fall under "involved" as I contributed to the GA disagreement about this article prior to the community reassessment. I asked at the WP:GAN#WP:Good article reassessment for new closers, but so far none have applied. If anyone disagrees with this close they are free to revert. AIRcorn (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were no set of action points and pass/fail criteria listed by the reviewer.
Most of the comments were provided right during the closure, without providing any room for rework.
The failure criteria listed have been addressed.

Ssriram mt (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a snip from Kumbakonam Reassessment.

1) Well-written: b

the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct. b Pretty okay. The section on Utility services is made of two small paragraphs that I feel it could be merged with some other section.
it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. As discussed in the GA-reassessment, the image caption for the Mahamaham contains peacock terms, but they haven't been remedied yet. A standard referencing style is not followed. The last name of the author along with the year should be used for citations ("Ayyar 1920" and not "P. V. Jagadisa Ayyar 1920"). The citations texts "Imperial Gazetteer of India" and "International Dictionary of Historic Places" should be replaced with author names.

2) Factually accurate and verifiable:

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
it contains no original research. The first sentence in the section "Education" claims that "The oldest functional educational institute in Kumbakonam is the Raja Veda Padasala, established by Govinda Dikshitar during the 16th century, that teaches Sanskrit vedic scriptures in specialised fields of Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, Agamas and Sastras." However, the source cited as reference does not state anywhere that the Raja Veda Padasala is the oldest in Kumbakonam. It is therefore WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.

3) Broad in its coverage:

it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). "During the Mahamaham festival of 1992, there was a major stampede in which 48 people were killed and 74 were injured." Why has this been mentioned? Was it the worst-ever accident of its kind in the Mahamaham? If so, then should it not belong in the "History" section. The article has too manyb images of temples and temple tanks.

4) Neutral:

5) Stable:

6) Illustrated, if possible, by images:

images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. There are excessive images of temples in Kumbakonam which could have been avoided. There are two images of the Mahamaham tank. The photos of the sculptures in Nageswaran temple has excessive lighting.

On the whole, I feel inclined to delist this article.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 06:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are still in progress and surprised to see the closure without providing time for a discussion/rework. All the comments were addressed right on the same day. Also a methodical review as done on Kanchipuram would have been best to handle this review.

The points on referencing of Ayyar, Imperial was not mentioned earlier and it is a simple edit.
Mahamaham tank and Mahamaham festival are two different entities - that is why two images are added. There is no peacock there as "prominent" is a commonly used term - example Mumbai. The annual Maham festival is one of the top 10 festivals in terms of number of visitors as per HR&CE calendar. The 1992 mishap movement to history is merely a copy paste from one section to other.
Images - we have a 10th century sculpture replacing a 20th century painting. Which should take precedence in history secion is common sense. If lighting is bleak, an alternate image can well be added. More images on temples - 2 more than originally present. Also i am not sure why a sculpture and a tank is counted with temples. Check this site as how these temples are treated by government - these are not merely religious, but cultural is the underline - p2. The tone is cultural and not religious.
Raja veda padasala - the reference clearly states 16th century. How much original research is needed to tell 16th century is older or 19th century? Also the part on "functional" is left out i suppose.

Well, nowhere does the article claim that the Rajaveda Padasala is the "oldest functional educational institute". This being the case, such an addition is a violation of WP:SYNTH. The Government Arts College, Kumbakonam, established in the 19th century, was definitely one of the oldest educational institutions in the Madras Presidency considering the fact that the term "educational institutions" is usually used to refer to European-style "schools" and "colleges" and not "pathashalas" and "gurukulas". Besides, Madras Presidency came into being only in the 17th century and hence, the college is definitely one of the oldest. You may very well disambiguate by using the term "European-style educational institution" or the like. Anyway, as I've already said, the claim in the Hindu article does not make Rajaveda Patashala the oldest institution in Kumbakonam.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 05:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have rephrased it. I am wondering if there were any educational institutions during the 16th century that were not padasalas in TN! WP:SYNTH and original research are superlative in this context. Ssriram mt (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, i seek a reassessment on the points above in a list with timeframe and the fail/pass be assessed subsequently. Also a second opinion can be sought if need be. I am not blindly seeking a GA, but with the effort put in and minimal rework that is needed, i think this can be through. Ssriram mt (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done All corrections mentioned above on references, images and merge are implemented.Ssriram mt (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this when it was undergoing the original individual reassessment. Many of the issues detailed above appear to be dealt with and most are not part of the criteria. In its current state I think it meets the Good Article critera and should be relisted. AIRcorn (talk) 10:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find that an uniform citation style has not been adopted yet for eg. see sambamurthy sastrigal, prashant more, etc, in contrast to jagadisa ayyar.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 05:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Included the changes. Ssriram mt (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]