Talk:Tiruvannamalai/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mrt3366 (talk · contribs) 11:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing it shortly. I am watching this page (kindly confine the discussions about the issues mentioned here to this page only) :) Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 11:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have addressed the comments - please have a look.Ssriram mt (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some additional caveats. Please check the same at your convenience.Ssriram mt (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you add "The census details of small towns for 2011 are yet to be published in census website"? The source does mention Tiruvannamalai then how is it necessary? Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 07:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The totals for 2011 are provisional -hence the caveat.Ssriram mt (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. 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:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).	Sources `17, 23 to 25` point to "Urban Infrastructure Report 2008", (pp. 76–79; p. 80; pp. 85–88) but the link is not working. The link is apparently pointing to a section titled "urban", either link it with the real page or delink it (not asking to delete the reference; simply don't link it to #urban). Update: sorted
	2c. it contains no original research.	culture section first paragraph needs attention. The last sentence is unsourced. In light of 2b "Economy" section first paragraph is entirely unverifiable. ([1]←This source doesn't corroborate most of the assertions in the paragraph. Fix it.) Update: sorted
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The recent edits added "The census details of small towns for 2011 are yet to be published in census website", why esp. since the source adequately supports the assertions made in the corresponding section?
	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:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Not yet first correct the issues mentioned above. Update:Wait I will check. 11:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Update @13:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC): All seem to be sorted but I am going recheck everything for the last time and this might take time. Have patience please.