Talk:Tamil Nadu/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 December 2023

Change the Image of Vetuvan koil to Image of Parthasarathy Perumal Temple. Vettuvan Koil is just 8th Century CE but Sri Parthasarathi Perumal Temple, Chennai dates way earlier to 5th Century CE or even older. The Structure finds a mention even in the Brahmanda Puranam, Naalayira Divya Prabandham and many more books. The temple also has inscriptions about the Pallava king, Nandivarman who lived between (718 CE – 796 CE). One of the earliest Alvars Pey Alvar (who lived between 5th and 6th Century) has mentioned this temple, which makes the temple The Oldest structure in Chennai. This Temple has faced several floods, cyclones, Tsunami (Just 400 Metres from the Beach). Several Singers and Philosophers were devoted to this God, Example Ramanujar, Vedanta Desikar, Muthuswamy Dheekshithar Swami Vivekanada, Bharathiyar and many more. This temple deserves a place in the Article Tamil Nadu instead of Vettuvan Koil. Sastri676 (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template.  Spintendo  23:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 December 2023

The article states the following:

Tamil Nadu is the home of the Tamil people, whose speak Tamil language

This ought to be changed to:

Tamil Nadu is the home of the Tamil people, who speak the Tamil language

which is more grammatically correct. Kuulopuhe (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Unless this construction is correct in Indian English, the form in which the article is written (and with which I am not familiar). Kuulopuhe (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done  Spintendo  00:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

We need to add "Dhanushkodi" under the Tourism section, as the place has a significant history, also we record so many tourists visiting the place every year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnanyaBDas (talk • contribs) 13:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tamil Nadu/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs) 10:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer: Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk · contribs) 22:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The article is quite lengthy, so I will need some time to review it. I hope to have review done within a week. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking it up. Will wait for the comments. Cheers! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This is a really strong article. I enjoyed reading it, learnt a lot from it. In my opinion, it's very close to Good Article status. There are just a few citation issues that need attention. Not surprising, given there's 590 ! It doesn't lack for reliable sources, but I have a few concerns.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I did a detailed proofread of the entire article, and have some routine copyedits to suggest (minor grammar, occasional sentence structure issues, etc.). However, that is not part of the GA review process. Once the GA process is done, I will raise those suggestions with you.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   (1) One concern is that some of the older cites took me to dead links, or inaccessible links. I couldn't check all of the links, but I think it would be a good idea for you to check links that pre-date 2015. That's the period when I started noticing that I was getting the occasional dead link. (2) There were also some cites that I didn't think quite supported the point being made, but I may have just been missing something. (3) I'll list the links I had trouble with, at the end of this review template, and would ask you to take a look at them. (4) I ran a copyvio check on the article and it came back with a "violations unlikely" rating.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Very broad and comprehensive, but focused on Tamil Nadu.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Detailed and descriptive, but not pushing a view point.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Some minor edits from other editors over the past few months, but nothing out of the ordinary.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I have a few comments about the wording of some of the captions, but that's not part of the GA review. I will share my thoughts on some copyedits after the GA process is complete.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I will put a one-week hold on the GA to let you take a look at the cite issues, which I'll outline next. Please let me know if that works for you.

   All queries responded to; I will pass this as a new Good Article.

Specific Citation issues I came across (using cite numbers as of this posting); would also suggest checking links that were accessed before 2015

• 1. "This site can’t be reached. www.censusindia.gov.in refused to connect."

Have given the new link for #1. Added an additional source as well.

Y

• 2. Link goes to regulation about hiring individuals for linguistic diversity, not to the Official Languages Act.

The reference link goes to the correct page citing the 2010 ordinance which is the update of the OL Act. It states "WHEREAS, the State of Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Official Language Act, 1956 (Tamil Nadu Act XXXIX of 1956) and adopted Tamil as the official language of the State under Article 345 of the Constitution"

Query: I've found a cite to the Act itself, which appears to be in force? : "The Tamil Nadu Official Language Act, 1956", Act 39 of 1956; published by PRS India; Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/1956TN39/mode/1up . I think that would be a better, direct cite, rather than to a Governor's Ordinance citing the Act?

Thanks, I have added the above citation to the original act.

Y (now note 3)

• 99. Eastern Deccan Plateau Moist Forests: "Oops, the page you’re looking for is extinct"

Modified the source

Y (now note 100)

• 140. This cite is meant to support discussion of two zoos, Arignar Anna Zoological Park and Madras Crocodile Bank Trust, but neither is mentioned in the cite, as far as I can see?

It is quoted in the ENVIS source at the end of the paragraph. Removed the confusing news citation.

Y (now note 134)

• 160. This cite says it is for the "Indian Councils Act", but the link takes me to the general Britannica article on modern India, which does not mention the Indian Councils Act. I think it should go to a different Britannica article, on the government of British India, which does have a discussion of the Indian Councils Act of 1861, under the heading "Government Organisation": https://www.britannica.com/place/India/Government-of-India-Act-of-1858#ref486263

Corrected the link. This is a citation for the act. The actual increase in seats is quoted in the other citation at the end of the paragraph (ref "SL")

Y (now note 164)

• 165. "Term of houses" : I get "Access Denied"

Gave a different accessible source

Y (now note 169)

• 166. "History of Madras High Court" - I get a security warning: "Your connection is not private". When I tried it earlier today, I got an odd warning that my computer clock was running ahead of the website.

This is due an error on the website part (it is stated as such in the browser. No issues, gave an alternate source

Y (now note 170)

• 167. Same security warning; same odd warning earlier today.

same as above, addressed

Y (now note 170)

• 258. This cite is to support this statement: "were held on a now vanished continent far to the south of India". However, I could not find any reference to that comment in the text, which is partly available on Google Books. Could you add a specific page number in support?

Have given an additional book and a journal source for support.

Y (new notes 263, 264)

• 262. "Five fold grammar of Tamil" - I got a "page not found" error.

The citation has been archived and archived link is accessible. Added a secondary source as well.

Y (now note 268; new note 269) - oops, that was my mistake; forgot to click the "Archive" link; sorry about that.

• 298. This cite is to support the summary about Kootha dance, but I could not find a discussion of Kootha dance in the linked text. Could you add a pinpoint cite?

Have given a book source

Y (new note 305)

• 316. This link goes to the current issue of Frontline, not to the one with the article from 2013.

Have given the archived link; Two citations support the same.

Y (now note 324)

• 358, 359, 360, 361. These cites are to support the number of banks in Chennai, but I couldn't find the numbers. Am I missing something?

Source 358 gives the count as well. Quote "Chennai has 400 financial industry businesses headquartered in the city"

Query: It was the reference to six banks that I can't find? The article in note 358 (now note 366) gives the 400 financial industries, but not the six banks. The article in note 369 states: "six private banks teamed up with Indian Overseas Bank to form Bharat Overseas Bank", but that suggests they merged into Bharat Overseas Bank. Am I missing a reference to six existing banks in Chennai?

Updated the number and gave a concurrent source

Y (now notes 366, 367, 368, 369 and 370)

• 439. I couldn't find anything in this cite that supports the foundation date for the Spectator newspaper, nor that it had been the first newspaper owned by an Indian.

Gave alternate source

Y (new note 447)

• 501. Got a "Sorry! Error 404 - Page Not Found" message.

Gave alternate book sources

Y (new notes 510, 511)

Hope you find this helpful. Please feel free to ask me any questions you may have. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I just remembered one other cite that I was puzzled by: # 159, citing Basu’s Intro to the Constitution of India. It’s cited to 1960, with LexisNexis Butterworths as the publisher. To the best of my recollection, LexisNexis Butterworths resulted from a merger in the early part of the 21st century, so I wonder if the year and the publisher given in the cite don’t line up? And is there an edition number for the cite? (By way of comparison, my copy of Basu is 17th Ed, 1987, with Prentice as the publisher.)

Yes, the corresponding edition is from 2011, corrected it. Gave an alternate book source as well.

Y (new notes 162, 163)

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, I have addressed the citation concerns raised above. I have checked for dead links and archived the links wherever possible to weed out accessibility issues on citations. I have also gone through the citations once again and added missing information if any (page nos., isbn etc.). Let me know if anything else needs to be addressed. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Y (auto-check on cites by Magentic Manifestations using IABotManagementConsole [1.3], June 3, 2024)

I just have those two additional Queries, for notes 2 and the set of 358, 359, 360, 361. Could you take a look at them? Thanks! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, I have addressed the same as well. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Excellent! I just now changed "Overall" to "Yes". Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to update item 2(b) in the template; changed it to "y"; should be good to go. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz Hi, Thanks! You need to complete the review by replacing the template in the talk page as per WP:GAN/I#PASS and adding it to the list of good articles. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Done! Sorry for the delay. Had work and family commitments yesterday. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Later conflicts and European colonization: "the British Crown"

I think this sentence is a bit too simple: "After the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the British Raj was formed after the British crown took over the control of governance from the company." The British Crown didn't have the constitutional power to take over the governance. It was the British Parliament that did it, by passing the Government of India Act 1858, which transferred governance from the East India Company to the Crown. The net result was the same, but I think it's important to have the legal mechanism correct. How about: "After the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the British Parliament passed the Government of India Act 1858, which transferred the governance of India from the East India Company to the British crown, forming the British Raj." Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

This is fine. Changes made. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Later conflicts: chronology

I'm a bit confused by this chronology about Pondichéry: "By 1693, French established trading posts at Pondichéry. The British and French competed to expand the trade which led to Battle of Wandiwash as part of the Seven Years' War. The British regained control in 1749 through the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle and resisted a French siege attempt in 1759." The Battle of Wandiwash was in 1760; 1749 was before the Seven Years' War started; had the British lost control sometime before 1749? Shouldn't the reference to Aix-la-Chapelle be before the reference to Wandiwash? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz Yes, added a line to explain the French capture of Madras, followed by the British repossession and then the Wandiwash battle.

Also you have left clarify tags (as you did with Raja raja and Western Ghats twice) but there is no explanation. Would be helpful if you add comments with the tag as to what clarification is required. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was using the edit summary as a a quick note. If I tag something with “clarify” again, I’ll add a comment here. Didn’t mean to be obscure.

• The Raja query was that in the same section, there’s a mention of Rajaraja, and also of Raja Raja. Is that the same person? If so, should the name be consistent?
• the Western Ghats query is that I’m confused whether “Ghats” is a singular noun or a plural noun. Originally, since it ends in “s” I thought it was plural, so takes 3rd person plural verb, but then later on, in one paragraph there’s a reference to the “Ghats have” (plural), and “Ghats is” (singular). Shouldn’t the verb number be consistent throughout, depending on whether Ghats is a singular or plural noun? I looked at the wiki article on Ghat and couldn’t tell how “Western Ghats” is treated.

Apologies for lack of clarity on my clarify tags 😁 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz Yes both refer to the same person, will address as same throughout the section. Western Ghats is a chain of mountains, will consider as a plural. Have modified the second sentence to resolve ambiguity. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Legislature: Use of "de jure" and "de facto"

I wonder about the use of "de jure" and "de facto" in the Legislature section, for a few reasons. First, as a general style rule, I always prefer to avoid Latin terms if at all possible, in the interest of Wikipedia:Readers first. If we can express a concept in English, I think that is preferable. Second, "de facto" is an ambiguous term, as shown by the Wikipedia article De facto (not a reliable source, but a good outline of the term). "De facto" can mean without legal authority, but followed in practice, but it can also mean a government leader who usurps constitutional authority and rules without legal authority.

Neither of those apply here. The powers of the Governor, the Chief Minister, and the Council of Ministers are set out in the Constitution. The Constitution vests the executive power of the state in the Governor (art 154), but it also provides that the executive power can be exercised "through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution". The Constitution also provides for the Council of Ministers, headed by the Chief Minister (art 163(1)), and the Governor is to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, except on the powers which are expressly stated to be in the Governor's discretion (art 163(2)). The Chief Minister's powers aren't "de facto".

I appreciate that it can be difficult to quickly explain a parliamentary system of this sort, similar to the Westminster system, but I think it would be best to avoid "de jure" and "de facto". How about the following:

In accordance with the Constitution of India, the Governor of Tamil Nadu is appointed by the President of India. The Governor of the state is vested with the executive authority of the state. However, on most matters the Governor is required to act on the advice of the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers, meaning that the actual governmental powers are largely exercised by the ministers, who are drawn from the group or groups which have a majority in the elected Legislative Assembly, and who are responsible to the Assembly. The Indian Councils Act etc.

I don't have a copy of the current edition of Basu which you cite, but I think that proposed summary is consistent with my old copy (12th ed.).

I've also noticed that note 165, Chapter I, Constitution of India (PDF), is a dead link. Would this cite be a good substitute? https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india/ Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Edited to Add: the sentence about the Indian Councils Act says that the Madras Presidency legislative council was a mere advisory body – to whom? The Governor of Madras Presidency, or the Viceroy? I wasn't sure? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)