Talk:S. J. V. Chelvanayakam

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:S. J. V. Chelvanayakam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 07:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll review this article over the next few days. Vanamonde (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

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:

   All concerns have been addressed

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

   No MOS issues

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

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

   All issues addressed

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's tool only highlights quotes and phrases so common that rewording would reduce prose clarity.

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):

   No tangential material

4. Is it neutral?

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

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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All image licensing checks out to the best of my knowledge.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Specific comments

Early life and family

• Not clear how the father remained in Ipoh, when you said the family moved someplace else.

The sources aren't clear on this. It could be that the father moved back to Ipoh from Taiping or it could be that Note 14 (Wilson 1994 p.5) is wrong - it is the only source that specifically states Chelvanayakam visited his father in Ipoh, two other sources only state that he visited his father in Malaya. Given the uncertainty I've changed Ipoh to Malaya.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Okay.

• Maybe worth adding a footnote to explain that "college" in the first two cases actually refers to the age groups that would be in "school" in other countries.

Done.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Education etc

• Since all your level four headings are under "politics", I'd suggest a slight reorganization: make "Education, Law, and business" it's own level two section, and turn "politics" or "political career" into a level two section, moving all of the sub sections up a level.

Done.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• "he used for political purposes." This is rather unclear. "Used to print newsletters for his party.." or something like that would be a lot better.

Re-worded.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Politics

• We need a little bit more detail on the Soulbury Commission and on the situation of Tamils in Ceylon in general; I'd say three to four sentences.

Done.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• If anything it's a touch too long now, but much better than before.

• Similarly, a phrase about what the Ceylon citizenship bill did will help make the paragraph clearer.

Done.--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've mentioned another problem below, but I'm not sure that "disenfranchised" is the right term: that literally means "took away their vote", and I'm fairly sure that didn't happen...was it not a case of revising citizenship status?

You're right, it was another bill, the Ceylon (Parliamentary Elections) Amendment Bill, which disenfranchised them. I've corrected, re-worded and added two new sources to replace the dead link.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm going to AGF that the Wilson source says what it does: but please make sure, in instance such as note 34, that the source is actually saying that those were the aims of ITAK; and not saying that that's what the ITAK said its aims were. This is a difference that many folks struggle over, especially in South Asian articles.

Wilson 2000, p.82 says "The FP had four principal objectives. The first was a federal union of Ceylon..." so yes, in this instance the source says it, not ITAK. I will check other instances later.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• "gave Prime Minister S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike until 20 August 1957 to meet ITAK's demands otherwise a campaign of non-violent civil disobedience would be launched." Something's not grammatically correct here. "demands, stating that otherwise, etc"?

Done.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• It might be helpful to clarify Bandaranaike's own political affiliation.

Done.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Can you reword the second sentence of the second paragraph, so that it does not start with "provocatively"? It sounds quite odd. Even better if you can state the fact in the first part of the sentence, and then add "which had the effect of" or "with the intent of" or "intentionally provoking" whichever is appropriate to the source

Re-worded.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• "bearing Sinhala "Sri" lettered number plates" confusing. How about "bearing number plates with the Sinhalese prefix "Sri""? Or some other clarification.

Re-worded.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• "In Batticaloa he was charged and imprisoned" for what? Vandalism? Destruction of public property?

Clarified.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Curious why Tamil organizations were banned after anti-Tamil riots: is this just another example of persecution? Can we provide more detail here?

Clarified.--Obi2canibe (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• "demands on colonisation" what demands would these be?

Clarified.--Obi2canibe (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Still not entirely clear to somebody unfamiliar with the topic. "state-sponsored colonisation of tamil-majority areas by Sinhalese" would be better: or whatever's appropriate.

Done.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• "introduce the provisions of the B-C pact in parliament." introduce the provisions [] as bills in parliament"?

Done.--Obi2canibe (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Sinhala Only Act" you should briefly explain what this is: or is that the second half of the sentence? In which case, that should be clarified.

Clarified in the "Illankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi" section.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'd avoid the use of "betrayed". It conveys a POV tone without actually adding to the information: the SLFP's duplicity has been mentioned already.

Removed.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Should be "using Sinhala" or using "the Sinhala language"

Done.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure if Satyagraha is accepted English; perhaps provide a link and a parenthetical translation the first time?

Already wiki linked in the "Illankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi" section. Have clarified here.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• "large crowds started gathering in front of the Kachcheri staging satyagraha in which ITAK MPs took part." Not sure what this means.

Basically they sat in front of the entrance, blocking entry. Have re-worded.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Solomon Bandaranaike's article should be linked at the first use.

S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike already wiki linked in the "Early life and family" section.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• "propagating this lie." This is a little strong. I'd suggest "claim" in place of "lie". Or you could keep the stronger language, and attribute it to Wilson.

Changed.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• "be appointed Senate" what does this mean?

Government ministers had to be MPs or senators and Tiruchelvam was neither. As half the members of the Senate were appointed by the Governor on the "advice" of the Prime Minister, Senanayake could get Tiruchelvam appointed to the Senate.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• So it should be "appointed to the senate". I've fixed it.

Sorry, missed that.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• "get the Tamil Regulations under the Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Act enacted in July 1966" Again, not very clear.

Re-worded.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Still not entirely clear. What did the bill do? Why are we mentioning it at all?

It was part of the Dudley-Chelvanayakam Pact. I have expanded to explain what it did.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'd suggest breaking the bit about the District councils bill into a separate sentence.

I don't think this necessary now that I've re-worded the first part of the sentence re Tamil Regulations under the Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Act.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Bit on District Councils Bill has been moved to separate sentence.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• "but offered critical support" rather ambiguous

This meant that they would generally support the government (i.e. not oppose for the sake of opposing or to bring down the government) but would oppose/criticise where necessary. Similar to confidence and supply. Not sure how to get this across.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm wondering about the use of "communalist". Is it's use supported by the sources? As in, do reliable sources call the party communalist in their own voice?

The two sources given for this sentence don't say it but Wilson, 1994 (p. 105) says "...along with the Sinhala-communalist SLFP, participated in an orgy of anti-Tamil propaganda".--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps "Sinhala nationalist" might be a better term, in that case. Vanamonde (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Changed.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• "who was still respected as a father figure by the youth" odd phrasing, and not very neutral. How about "who still commanded respect among Tamil youth, urged..."

Agreed, done.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• "launch a non-violent struggle." I'd suggest "...struggle against XYZ"

Clarified.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• The first sentence and the last paragraph of the TUF subsection are quite problematic in tone. I'll leave you to deal with those, and look over it once you are done.

Re-worded.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Previous concern has been addressed, but "by now" is a poor way to start a sentence. By when?

Removed.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• The TULF section is okay, but the use of "leading" and "famous" needs to be dealt with: they are classic peacock terms.

Re-worded/removed.--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• "famous trial at bar case" what does this mean?

The case received a lot of media attention.--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• I know what famous means :) It's the "trail at bar case" I'm confused about. can you link it? Or is it simpler just to say "trial"?

Footnote added.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think a little more detail about his family may be appropriate; there is also something grammatically odd with the sentence about moving abroad.

Section expanded and sentence re-worded.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• First two sentences of the last paragraph are rather confusing.

Which section a you referring to?--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• You know, I don't recall what I meant...

Sources

• The reliability of the following sources is rather questionable:

• Tamilnet

TamilNet is a news website. Although it may not always be neutral, it has been judged WP:SLR as fulfilling WP:RS. It should also be noted that TN hasn't been used as a source by itself.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• sangam.org

Sources replaced.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• tamil nation

Sources replaced.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• noolaham.net (the dictionary)

Noolaham isn't the source, it's where the sources have been located. It's a repository of books, journals, newspapers, magazines etc.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I have provided Google Books links for some of the noolaham hosted sources.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• countrystudies.us

I have located the source at the Library of Congress - ref has been amended.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• transcurrents.com

This was a news website run by respected journalist D. B. S. Jeyaraj who has worked for many of Sri Lanka's national English language newspapers.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I have nevertheless replaced the sources.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• pact.lk (the timeline: footnote 42),

Sources replaced.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• The following footnotes are deadlinks:

• Footnote 29

I have removed this and added two new sources, Haynes and de Alwis (see comment above Ceylon Citizenship Bill).--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Footnote 41

Archive link added.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Footnote 42

Archive link added.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Please remember, in general, that where possible information should be based on scholarly sources: where this is not possible, news articles and non-scholarly books should be the next best option. Party websites are very very rarely an acceptable source for anything. The importance of the topic only makes the need for good sources stronger.

• In general, it is far more helpful to have a link to google books, where available; or a publisher's website, when that's not available. I'm not sure why you've linked noolaham.net for the book sources.

As mentioned above Noolaham isn't the source, it's where I downloaded the sources from. I have provided Google Books links for those I could find.--Obi2canibe (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Please check to see if ISBN's are available for all the books you have cited: some are missing at the moment. Also a place of publication, if you can manage that, but that's trickier.

ISBNs have been provided where available.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• All the web sources need access dates, so that if and when the url expires, they can be archived.

Access date added for web and news citations.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

lede

• At the moment, the lede is far from adequate. It needs to summarize the main points of the article. I'd suggest a length of no less than three paragraphs, which, apart from the introductory sentence or two, summarize the information in the article in more or less the same order.

Done. Maybe too long?--Obi2canibe (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• No, not too long; but the commentary at the moment is all positive. There does not seem to have been much explicitly negative commentary about him, but you could perhaps add the fact that many of his efforts were not successful. Vanamonde (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Added a sentence that he failed to secure Tamil rights. Legacy section also updated.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Much better. One further suggestion: I think the suggestion that his belief in Parliament was naive, and the turn to violence after his death, could both go in the lead. This would provide both nuance and context, IMO, because it isn't a positive thing, but it isn't criticism either; more of an evaluation of both him and the system he lived in, and would connect both to the civil war, which is much better known outside Sri Lanka than most other things. Vanamonde (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Lede expanded.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Images

• The one image seems appropriately licensed: the fair use rationale seems okay, though I am admittedly not an expert. I'm wondering if there's any other relevant images available. Anything on any of the campaigns? Any free use images of Bandaranaike?

There are no free images of Chelvanayakam or his political campaigns. Have added a free image of Bandaranaike.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Could you restructure the captions a little? I'd suggest "SWRD Bandaranaike, Prime Minister of Ceylon from XXXX to YYYY" and similarly for the other one. Vanamonde (talk) 07:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. The second image is a bit cumbersome as Senanayake served three separate terms as PM.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• After one read through, I'm not certain I can pass this particular review. The prose is generally grammatical and clear, but it has issues with neutrality; it is uncritically accepting of the Tamil Nationalist POV. Now please don't misunderstand me; the issue here is typically not of content per se, but of tone and/or sources. For instance: "Ceylon's Sinhalese dominated government set about disenfranchising the 780,000 (12% of the population) Indian Tamils living in Ceylon by introducing the Ceylon Citizenship Bill." Factually, this might be true: indeed, from my readings about Sri Lanka, I suspect it is true. But it needs more detail, and multiple secondary sources are needed to make such a claim: a deadlinked UN report, and a UN working paper, fall short. Another example: "He was the political leader and father figure of the Ceylon Tamil community"; this is heavy praise for 'Wikipedia's voice. "Political leader" is fine, but "father figure" probably should be qualified with "described as" or something like that. The "Legacy" section is the biggest of these problems. I will still leave some comments above, but the review will hinge on this issue. I would suggest going over the article sentence by sentence, checking whether the language is appropriate, and the sources good enough for the claim in question. Vanamonde (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Had a go at toning down the "Legacy" section.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• This is a lot better now, thanks.

• Grammatically speaking, something happens in an election, not at an election. It might be worth going over the article once, to check for colloquialisms from Sri Lankan English. Vanamonde (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for volunteering to review this article. This is my first GA nomination so your feedback is welcome, even if the nomination ultimately fails. I will try answer your specific comments and rectify the issue with POV over the next few days (can't do it in one go due to work commitments).--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Nice work; this has improved hugely since the beginning of the review. There's just a few minor comments left; I can pass this soon as those have been dealt with, and none of them are truly deal breakers. Vanamonde (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I've dealt with all your comments other than the publication location - I'll look at this on Friday evening if you can wait until then.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Since that's the only thing left, and it's quite a minor detail, I will leave you to deal with it at your leisure and pass this now. Well done: this is an important article, so thanks for bringing it this far. Vanamonde (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thank you for all your support.--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)