Talk:Panaganti Ramarayaningar

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 19:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Raja of Panagal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Initial Concerns

I am beginning this review, and before anything formal, I just have a few, knee-jerk concerns:

It seems skewed. Now, I profess no knowledge of the subject of this article, but it seems to have been written in a very positive light without criticism. His enemies are referred to as dissidents, which may be the correct term, but, in the context, it seems all very glowing. there is no criticism or contraversy section. Is it possible that this man was so important for so long without any criticism? the no confidence vote section doesn't tell why they voted no confidence.. I'll write more later - The Talking Sock talk contribs 15:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a bit of criticism in the article, but it appears that this criticism is "invisible" as there is no separate "controversies" section. You may observe the following statement in the section on "Reforms":

In 1923, M. C. Rajah, a Justice Party leader from the Dalit community protested against the government order arguing that the act did not guarantee adequate representation of Dalits who he felt deserved 30% reservation in the administration and the services. When the Justice Party failed to respond, he resigned from the primary membership of the party

As far as the praises are concerned, I had only reproduced quotes made by important people including some of the Raja's opponents. However, the tone of the article itself does not assume any bias. Yeah, the praises seem to be more than criticisms and I've tried my hand at neutralizing it by adding a section on the B&C mills strike. Though this particular incident did not fall within the Raja's jurisdiction, the views of Justice Party leaders were indeed controversial and worthy of mention. I've also included the reason why C. R. Reddy broke off from the government. I guess the article now looks fairly neutral.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 15:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Has there been any updates to this article's review recently? It is one of the articles at GAN that has gone the longest without a review. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. The main reviewer has been absent for quite sometime. I've messaged the reviewer but I am yet to get a response.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 03:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Before reading this page I indicated on the GAN page that I would take this review. Since it looks as though someone may already be reviewing (albeit in absentia) I will hold off on reviewing. If the previous reviewer has not returned by March 2nd I will take up the review, unless someone has an objection. H1nkles (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Since there have been no concerns raised I will go ahead and begin my review. H1nkles (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   I wouldn't go so far as to say "biased" but it is fairly positive without major mention of negative opinions on him. Not enough IMO to not pass though.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Regarding Lead

• The lead is fairly detailed, for example you probably don't need to have all the bills he got passed in the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the article.

• Modified accordingly.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 15:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Observers often attribute the decline of the Justice Party in the mid 1930s to the absence of charismatic leaders in the Justice Party following his death." Watch weasel words in this sentence. "Observers" is fairly general and should be more specific. H1nkles (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've reworded but I look forward to suggestions from you.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 15:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Early political career

• The photo in this section has a clean up tag that will need to be addressed.

• I do not remember the author of the picture. I've removed the photo as it does not appear to be indispensable to the article. -The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 15:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• It seems like the next section on his ascention to Minister of self-government could be incorporated into the section on his early political career. The early political career spans his time from 1912–1925. Since he was elected to the post of the Minister of self-government in 1919 it would seem like you could incorporate this into his early political career. It would also remove a fairly short section and make the article flow a little better. H1nkles (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

* Merged the two sections-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 15:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding B&C strike

• You wikilink to Untouchables, please be more specific. The link leads to a list of various items that may refer to untouchable. Please specify your link to the Indian Caste.

• Replaced the word "untouchables" with "untouchables or Dalits" and wikilinked "Dalits".-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 15:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• What are Dalits? I'm not familiar with this and since there is no wikilink you should explain this term for the benefit of the layman reader who is unfamiliar with Indian politics.

• Resolved as above-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 15:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding no confidence motion

• "who was fed up with the dictatorial rule of the Raja[27] and his insensitive, unimaginative policies" Are these quotes of Reddy against the Raja? If so then please specify that these are his opinions and use quotation marks. If not then they should be removed as POV statements.

• Reworded as "The dissidents were lead by C. R. Reddy, a leader of the Justice Party, who complained of the dictatorial rule of the Raja and his insensitive, unimaginative policies."-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 15:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm confused by these sentences, "On November 27, 1923, a no-confidence motion was passed against the government of the Raja of Panagal.[25][24] The no-confidence motion was defeated by a margin of 65 votes to 44.[29]" You can't pass a no-confidence motion and then defeat it. Perhaps I'm not reading it correctly. H1nkles (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Reworded as "...a no-confidence motion was introduced against the government of the Raja of Panagal"-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 15:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding reforms

• I added a to the end fo the "Madras State Aid to Industries act" section. This assertion should be sourced.

• Added source-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 16:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• This paragraph, "In 1923, M. C. Rajah, a Justice Party leader from the Dalit community protested against the government order arguing that the act did not guarantee adequate representation of Dalits who he felt deserved 30% reservation in the administration and the services. When the Justice Party failed to respond, he resigned from the primary membership of the party." is stated previously in the "B&C Mill Strike" section. Perhaps remove the reference in that section and leave it here. Otherwise it's duplicative.

• fixed-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 14:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Also you wikilink to Dalits here but not above. Please see previous comment on Dalits. You should wikilink the first reference to this term in the article. H1nkles (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• In the municipal development act you have five kilometers and two kilometers. Per WP:Units you should also list (miles) in parentheses.

• Modified accordingly by using {{Convert}}-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 16:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• The prose in this sentence is awkward, "The streets in this new locality were named after prominent members of the Justice Party or officials in the municipal administration as Mr. Boag and Mr. Burkitt.[41]" Consider rewording.

• I feel that an appropriate suggestion to this regard might be useful to improve my understanding of this issue-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 16:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• My thinking on this sentence is that since Boag and Burkitt aren't really discussed in the article and most readers likely wouldn't know who they were I would leave them out altogether. A possible rewrite would be, "The streets in this new locality were named after prominent members of the Justice Party or officials in the municipal administration." Just a suggestion though. H1nkles (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, Boag Road is named after one George Townsend Boag who was Municipal Commissioner and was responsible for planning the new suburb; I am planning to write an article on him in the near future. Anyway, you're right. I don't think we need to mention these two individuals now.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 19:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• I've reworded it :-)-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 19:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• When did he become the Raja of Panagal? Was it when he became Chief minister in the second general election? If so then please tell the readers this. The article switches from referring to him as "Ramarayaningar" to the "Raja of Panagal" and there isn't a clear dileniation of when he becomes the Raja. H1nkles (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • All that I could gather is that he was made "Raja of Panagal" in 1923. I could not find any mention of the occasion or even the corresponding month in the source that I've used-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 16:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding President of Justice Party and Later years

• The order and structure of these two sections is a little odd to me. You have a table and a very brief discussion of how he became the president of the Justice party, then below it you have his later years and the results of the 1926 elections, which is included in the table in the previous section. You may want to combine the two sections and put the table in the combined section. This would seem to make more sense than the way it is currently structured. H1nkles (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• The section "Last years" speak about his last years as politician. It does speak about the 1926 elections but not about the 1926 elections alone. It also describes a no-confidence motion against the P. Subbarayan government and lobbying by the Governor in order to prevent the fall of the Subbarayan regime. And then, it describes the Justice Party, and more importantly, the Raja of Panagal's stand during the visit of the Simon Commission. Moreover, it dwells on the 1926 election and the lobbying and maneuvering which follows in a detail which the table lacks. The table just comprises of bunch of figures and the results of the elections. The textual part is the one which actually describes in detail about what happened-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 14:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding death and legacy and honours

• the honours section is just two sentences, unless you can expand this Honours section, I think this would be best combined with the section above on his death and legacy. It will make the article better formatted. H1nkles (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've merged those two sections.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 01:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• thanks much better. H1nkles (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding References

• Reference 3 is a dead link. You rely heavily on this reference. Please fix this.

• The article was very much there about a month back when I visited that link. I guess Periyar University removed it quite recently. I tried making a search through Google but little luck till now-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 16:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• You've replaced the dead link with a link from a wikipedia article. The article should not rely on another wikipedia article for support. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources for information on this. H1nkles (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• No, I haven't replaced the external link with an internal link. I've let it remain as an offline ref. The internal link that you speak of must probably be the authorlink for R. K. Shanmukham which links to the Wikipedia article for the author of the book.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 01:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oh I see, that makes sense, my mistake. Am I to assume that the PDF article is offline only and that your attempts to find it online have been fruitless? H1nkles (talk) 08:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• The biography of the Raja of Panagal titled "The Rajah Saheb of Panagal" by R. K. Shanmukham appeared as an obituary notice in the Justice Party periodical Justice in 1928. It was uploaded to cyber space along with other valuable documents concerning the Dravidian Movement by Periyar University. The last time that I visited the URL must've been in January 2009. Seems that it had been removed from the site within the past few days. Nevertheless, I have an offline copy of the PDF in my system and will be able to clarify any doubts concerning its content.
• Well, I do regularly read old issues of the New York Times and the Time magazines on the internet. While archives of most British and American newspapers and periodicals are available online, sadly, those of Indian newspapers such as The Hindu, The Indian Express, etc. aren't. The documents had been uploaded by Periyar University, probably, because they are essential as a part of the university's research curricula. But given the scarcity of old material uploaded from India, I don't think the prospect of finding an online replacement is promising. I tried searching using Google by typing out a variety of keywords and spellings, but I have not been able to find one.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 12:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Otherwise the references are well formatted and credible.

• Thanks a lot :-)-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 16:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Overall Review

• I've listed several issues that should be resolved.
• The clean up tags in the photos need to be addressed.

• The 1921 Madras map still has a clean up tag on it that will need to be fixed. H1nkles (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 12:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• There are some structural issues with the article-sections that can be combined-that should be addressed.
• Check the other MOS issues listed above (POV, LEAD, UNITS).
• The photos are ok, though is there a photo of the Raja himself? This is conspicuously absent.
• There are a couple of prose issues that I've outlined above.
• Fix the dead reference.
• I'll hold the article for a week for work. If you finish early let me know. H1nkles (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please check the comments above on the Honours section and reference #3. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I will attempt to do a final review in the next day or two (assuming everything has been addressed). I have two busy days coming up so I hope to be able to finalize it by the middle of this week. H1nkles (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure! Thanks a lot!-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 17:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I made some significant edits (which I really don't like doing as the reviewer) to the article. Take a look and let me know what you think. I made the edits to address stub paragraphs (a no no per the MOS). I also addressed the sentence about naming him the Raja of Panagal and his knighthood. I feel as though the orginal placement of these facts was incongruous with the chronological order of his life. That's why I made the changes. I'd like to pass this article but there are still a few things that need to be worked on. I've done some of it, I'll do some more tomorrow when I have a bit more time. Take a look at what I've done and let me know what you think. H1nkles (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just had a look at your edits. They are good. By the way, I have an idea and wish to know your opinion about it. Consider this sentence from B&C Mills strike section:

Though the B & C mills strike was eventually settled through the mediation of C. Natesa Mudaliar,[19] the communal riots which had accompanied it caused a severe strain on the relations between Dalits and the Justice Party

How about replacing this with:

Though the B & C mills strike was eventually settled through the mediation of C. Natesa Mudaliar,[19] the communal riots which had accompanied it estranged Dalits from the Justice Party

I feel that this would be more appropriate as until the strike happened most Dalits voted for the Justice Party. Also, there were a lot of Dalit members in the party as M. C. Rajah.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 03:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the wording in your suggestion, it sounds like it better reflects the historical record. I'll continue to review the article today, thank you for your patience. H1nkles (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

B&C Mill strike comments

I accessed one of your references heavily used in this section and I have some concerns. I feel as though reference 19 does not support some of the statements you cite in the article. I'll list those statements here:

• The Police Member of the Governor's Council ordered a crackdown. I don't see mention of the Governor's Council in the article.
• Made appropriate adjustments to the article-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 15:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Ministers in the Madras government and ruling party members supported the strike and were unrestrained in their condemnation of the workers who wished to end the strike. I don't see mention of Justice parties unfettered rebuke of the workers who wanted to end the strike and return to work.

• Made appropriate adjustments to the article-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 15:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Top Justice Party leaders like O. Thanickachalam Chetti severely censured the police for the ruthless measures they adopted. I don't see mention of ruthless measures taken by police in this article. I do see where they are condemned by Chetti and perhaps it is implied that the condemnation is due to "ruthless measures" taken to suppress the strike but that isn't clear from the article.

• How else shall I rewrite this sentence in this particular source:"After all the rioting and firing had died down, O.T. Chettiar strongly criticised the police in the House"-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 13:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Okay! I'll just remove the second part of the sentence.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 13:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry I was away from my computer when you wrote this. Perhaps this is due to my misunderstanding what is meant by "firing", I thought it was were referring to firing of strikers (as in they lost their jobs) but if it was something more violent (firing guns, setting things on fire) then that would constitute ruthless measures. H1nkles (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've added links to this news item from the New York Times which mentions an incident of police firing during the strike.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 14:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• I've removed the word "ruthless". Maybe, it sounds like an opinion.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 15:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The severe strain between Dalits and the Justice Party that you indicate at the end of this section should be referenced. It could be implied from reference 19 but I would try and find a source that more explicitly states the estrangement. H1nkles (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Added ref-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 15:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done with my final review. If you can take a look at that section and reference 19 that would be great. Once it's addressed I'll be happy to pass the article. Thank you for going through the process and graciously allowing me to pick apart the article. H1nkles (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The article looks good, I've put you through the ringer but I think that the review was a success and the article is ready to pass. It was a pleasure to work with you on this project and I do hope we can collaborate again some day. H1nkles (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :-) I commend you for your patience and thank you for your help with this article.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 17:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Raja of Panagal is a hereditary title

Raja of Panagal is a hereditary title,so a succession list of the Rajas of Panagal needs to be created. - (203.211.72.5 (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)).

Dubous source - The Revolt

I've just fixed a citation that now reads {{cite book | editor1-first=V. |editor1-last=Geetha |editor2-first=S. V. |edior2-last=Rajadurai |title=Revolt - Radical Weekly in Colonial Madras |origyear=1928 |url=http://www.thamizhagam.net/thamizhagam/elibrary/Kudiyarasu/Revolt.pdf |pages=176-179 |chapter=Some Non-Brahmin Leaders |publisher=Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam |accessdate=22 July 2013}} There are various problems with using this as a source, these principally being:

• It is published by an advocacy group and uses worrying phrases such as "in solidarity" to address the reader
• The extracts in the compendium come from a radical news source published in 1928 and have no attributed author
• Although the extract in question is dated December 1928, we have no idea when the book itself was published nor do we know anything about the academic credentials of its editors.

Under normal circumstances, this source would be rejected as unreliable but since this is a listed Good Article (and possibly it should not be), I thought it best to check here. - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to remove it and the statements that rely upon it. - Sitush (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• • As you can see, you have not only changed the names of the authors but even the name of the book. On checking an old version of this article, you find that the article was originally published in 1928 and written by R. K. Shanmukham Chetty who was independent India's finance minister. While I don't wish to comment on the reliability of the source, I feel such edits are disruptive and very much against the spirit of this encyclopedia.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 16:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• • I don't understand why so much fuss about reliability. You might observe that the publication is only used to source his date of birth and facets of his early life. The article itself is neutral and does not take any controversial position. Nor, is the publication used as a source for sections on his political views.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 17:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Raja of Panagal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929090135/http://www.thestatesman.net/page.arcview.php?clid=4&id=155652&usrsess=1 to http://www.thestatesman.net/page.arcview.php?clid=4&id=155652&usrsess=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)