Talk:Kumbakonam/GA3

GA Reassessment

Keeping Review appears to be abandoned. It has already been kept at a community GAR and the requests here go beyond the WP:GAR. AIRcorn (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch[reply]
I find that the good article reassessment has been prematurely closed and most of the issues raised have not been fixed.

For example, the article uses both Shortened footnotes as well as the long ones. I've already raised this issue in the assessment but the issue is yet to be addressed.

Eg. Some citations use author name, page no like "Sarma, pp 544" and the name of the published source is given in the refeences section - "Sarma, Krishnamurti B. N. (2000). A history of the Dvaita school of Vedānta and its literature: from the earliest beginnings to our own times. Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 8120815750, ISBN 9788120815759."

Others give the complete source as the footnote - "Herbermann, Charles George (1934). The Catholic encyclopedia: an international work of reference on the constitution, doctrine, discipline, and history of the Catholic church, Volume 8. The Catholic Encyclopedia Inc. p. 710. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)"

Should it not be even throughout and a same single citation format used all over the article? This was one of the main reasons why I sought to delist the article and I feel that this core issue needs to addressed.

Some more clarity needed here - When the same book with different pages is used, the short citation is used and linked as in the case of Mumbai. I feel that is how we commonly refer it - as in here?

That's okay then-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 17:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point about the "Raja Veda Padasala" seems unnecessary and a violation of WP:UNDUE. What is so unique about the Raja Veda Padasala? Is it the only one in Kumbakonam? The point appears to have been taken from a random feature published by The Hindu. As such I am sceptical of plucking out history and culture-related stuff published in The Hindu itself. Such pieces are often written by travel-writers (not historians) and are not consistent in their factual accuracy.

I will try to add references - the padasala is the oldest functioning one of its kind.Ssriram mt (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added quite some references.

My expectations might be a bit too high but I feel that the article should be foolproof in order to meet the requirements.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 03:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wish you had just reverted my close of the community reassessment than simply opened a new individual one. We are now simply going around in circles. Three months since it started and over a month since the last comment is hardly premature. Consistently formatted citations are not actually part of the criteria (see Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not where it says under mistakes to avoid "Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA.") I think your expectations are a little too high, this is not WP:FA. AIRcorn (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By premature, I am not referring to the time interval, rather I mean to say that the reasons for which the GAR was raised have not yet been addressed. My expectations might be high, but then, we come across so many articles promoted to GA or FA class a few years back that don't fit the bill today. Some FAs of Wikiproject Tamil Nadu like Chola Dynasty and History of Tamil Nadu are such an eyesore. This article might pass a GA but there are obvious defects in it that they might not be able to live up to the standards as expectations are bound to increase in the future. So, even if an article isn't top-class, I feel it will be good if it does not have visible defects.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 02:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a little harsh to judge these articles on potential future expectations. If they meet the criteria at the moment they should be kept. If the criteria increases in the future then we will deal with that at the time. I am not even sure the expectations will increase that much as the current criteria has been relatively stable since 2006. AIRcorn (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As in the case of Madras Presidency, dates need to be standardised. "AD" is used in some places and in some places, it is not.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 05:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the AD denotion as per Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Dates. I have also made minor corrections in both the articles. Can we look at closing both (Madras Presidency) these by specifying what is needed and before when - let us save time and effort of everyone. Ssriram mt (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]