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.
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.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 05:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)