Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chennai/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Nikkimaria 18:36, 14 April 2012 [1].

Chennai[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Chennai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Sodabottle, SpacemanSpiff, WikiProject India

I am nominating this featured article for review because of reasons given below in the last post of the Talk page. X.One SOS 15:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secret of Success, please detail your concerns with this article's status - your post on the talk page only says that there are a lot of problems. Dana boomer (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, coming to that, firstly, the tag on the "Education" section seems irrelevant. An example farm tag was also put up before, but I cleared all the unwanted companies and institutes to remove it. Another section to be addressed is "Media". It has the same problems that education had, too many examples and no content. In "Geography", some things need sources like "A third river, the Kortalaiyar, flows through the northern fringes of the city before draining into the sea at Ennore. Adyar and Cooum rivers are heavily polluted with effluents and waste from domestic and commercial sources". I'm also not sure if the Chennai corporation website is a good source for some of the data, for it is more of an SPS. For now, that's all. But to address these alone needs a donkey's effort. X.One SOS 16:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article barely makes use of any published books. However, I don't agree with Secret of success' perception that the corporation website is not a good source. Stats on the civic amenities and utilize services in the city are given out by the corporation. Published books, too, if any, might rely on the stats provided by the corporation.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 18:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Talk page notice was archived. It's now here. Brad (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criteria concerns mentioned in the review section focused mainly on referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there may be issues with sources and references, but I'm finding some prose issues as well.

    Chennai is well connected to other parts of India by road. Four major national highways branches out from Chennai.They are National Highway 4 (India) to Mumbai(via Bangalore), National Highway 5 (India) to Kolkata (via Bhubaneswar),National Highway 45 (India) to Theni (via Tiruchirapalli)and National Highway 205 (India) to Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh (via Tirupati).Numerous state highways link the city to Pondicherry and other towns and cities in Tamil Nadu and neighbouring states.

    This section needs to have links piped, spaces inserted between sentences, and just a general copy edit. Imzadi 1979 → 19:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox should be switched over like was done on Kolkata; the current one has issues with text appearing too small, and it the other one can accommodate up to four leadership officials making the side table in the "Administration" section unneeded. Imzadi 1979 → 03:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations need a review with an eye towards making their formatting consistent. Newspapers whose names don't include their cities should have their locations listed separately, but they aren't. FN 9 has the article title in italics, but the name of the encyclopedia isn't. The article should be in quotes and the book title should be in italics. FN 10 should have its all caps reduced per MOS:CAPS. I could continue, but suffice it to say that each citation needs to be scrutinized and corrected for consistency. Imzadi 1979 → 03:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some stuff has been shifted making them FNs 12 and 13, but they are:
Wagret, Paul (1977). India, Nepal. Nagel's encyclopedia-guide. Geneva: Nagel Publishers. p. 556. ISBN 978-2-8263-0023-6. OCLC 4202160
"District Pofile – CHENNAI". Chennai.tn.nic.in. Retrieved 7 September 2009.
As you can see, the article title (India, Nepal) is in italics, and the title of the overall work (Nagel's encyclopeda-guide) was in plain text. I didn't audit through the whole reference list because there's 176 footnotes at the moment, but these two jumped out at me. Article titles should be in quotation marks as components of a larger work, and the larger work gets placed in italics. We also don't use all capital letters in our citations. The should look something like:
Wagret, Paul (1977). "India, Nepal". Nagel's encyclopedia-guide. Geneva: Nagel Publishers. p. 556. ISBN 978-2-8263-0023-6. OCLC 4202160
"District Pofile – Chennai". Chennai.tn.nic.in. Retrieved 7 September 2009.
A suggestion, but my personal preference is to avoid using domain names ("chennai.tn.nic.in") whenever possible since the group that owns the domain name should have their own name that can be used as the publisher. In this case, that's the district's website, so something like Chennai District should be used instead. Imzadi 1979 → 07:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I didn't get to this one before it went to FARC. At a glance I see many troubles. Citations to Britannica, citations missing retrieved on dates, citations with a mess of different date formatting dmy ymd mdy etc, citations with broken harvard refs, and citations with dead links. Education section has a synthesis tag placed last August. The talk page contains a list of "Good quality sources" (whatever that means) but they haven't been utilized. Discussion about article improvements has been going on for months. Brad (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was the one that posted a shortened version of the "list of troubles" on the talk page. Most of it still applies. As far as the good quality source listing, I just pulled up some books that are considered significant in the discussion of Chennai. I'll try to expand the list soon (per my commitment to Dana a few weeks back, sorry, just been away from WP) and/or try to edit the article, but as it stands I think the article is a candidate for removal. —SpacemanSpiff 06:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Problems remain. For example, uncited statements and apparent original research in the Education section. I took a look at the first two sentences in the section: Schools in Chennai are either run publicly by the Tamil Nadu government or privately, some with financial aid from the government.[138] The medium of education is either English or Tamil, with the former being the majority.[139] I looked at each mention of Chennai in ref 138: there is mention of one "Matriculation School"; there is mention of "Corporation Schools"; I don't see anything about private schools receiving financial aid. In ref 139, I see mention of "teaching English" and "Tamil-medium schools"; I see nothing about "either" English or Tamil; nothing about English in the majority. DrKiernan (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed out "government and government aided schools" in reference 138. That means government owned schools and other schools (private) funded by government. Regarding the second one, I have made a change in the source. X.One SOS 08:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see support for the statements in either source. It is a fair assumption that there is a government-funded and a government-aided school in every Indian city, but [138] does not seem to say directly "there is a government-aided school in Chennai". Nor do I see "the majority of schools in Chennai teach in English" and "schools in Chennai only teach in English and Tamil" in [139]. Given that The Musalman is published in Chennai, and the population is 10% Muslim, I would expect some education in Urdu, and for there to be madrassas attached to mosques teaching in an appropriate language. DrKiernan (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, that PDF is published by the Government of Tamil Nadu. It applies to the whole of Tamil Nadu, and Chennai is a part. In case of an exception, it is mentioned specifically, like in page 67. It does not say directly that there is a xXx school in Chennai, but indirectly it is understood. I also happened to look at the corporation's website, which says "Education Department, Corporation of Chennai which was started with 40 primary schools in the year 1912, today manages 27 Higher Secondary Schools, 36 High Schools, 1 Urdu High School, 1 Telugu High School, 124 Middle Schools (Tamil, Telugu & Urdu), 141 Primary schools and 30 Kinder Garden schools with an overall enrollment of 1,42,387 Students and 4062 Teachers." That means that there are schools having a medium of education in Tamil, Telugu, Urdu and English, so all 4 need to be mentioned. I don't know if that is a good source, for it is an WP:SPS, but since the information is not self-serving unduly, I believe it can be used. And in the present ref 139, it says "Children hailing from Tamil medium schools are confident and happy individuals suddenly transplanted into a hostile and alien atmosphere are linguistically at sea as English is the medium of instruction in most institutions dispensing higher education." That means English has dominated as the medium in higher secondary schools, but for middle and lower classes, it does not say so. Can the sentence be accordingly modified like "English is the dominant medium in higher secondary schools"? X.One SOS 16:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've no problem with using the corporation as a source, or the suggested wording. DrKiernan (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have modified it accordingly. X.One SOS 17:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand the education section. The first sentence claims that schools that either government or private, even though the source does not support that. Later on in the same paragraph it talks of "Corporation Schools" that I would assume are schools funded by the Corporation. If so, then schools are either funded by the government or privately or by the local authority. I don't know whether this is the case or not, and the article does not make it clear. The first sentence that the public schools are run by the Tamil Nadu government appears to be contradicted in the very same paragraph when it says the Chennai Corporation maintains the schools. DrKiernan (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 138, let me be clear. Source. " Her care and concern for the school age children is well expressed in the announcements made namely, free laptops for +1 and +2 students, two sets of uniform in the academic year 2011-2012 and four sets from the academic year 2012-2013, additionally providing a pair of footwear to the students of Government and Government Aided schools." The last bit, says that the measure has been taken for government schools and government-aided (which means, private schools with government aid). The source is used just to confirm the existence of government and private-government aided schools. The Chennai article says "Schools in Chennai are either run publicly by the Tamil Nadu government or privately, some with financial aid from the government."X.One SOS 16:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was mistaken, the Chennai Corporation is a body independent of the Tamil Nadu government. This makes things more confusing. I'll try solving this issue after consulting a few editors. X.One SOS 16:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Independent of the state government?" They are the wings of the state government. Have you looked at any of the corporation websites for that matter? Even the expansion of the city cannot be done on own by the municipal authorities, but decided only by the respective state governments. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does it say "Thus Corporation of Chennai is maintaining 286 Corporation Schools, 336 Government and Government aided management schools and 10 A.D. Welfare Schools." What exactly is the difference between Corporation schools and government schools? X.One SOS 17:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified by Vensatry. As per the source, "Further in the year 1990 the Government and Government aided schools and A.D. welfare schools are brought under the control of Corporation." That means that the schools in Chennai were government owned before 1990 but afterwards, they have been controlled by the Chennai corporation. So, the sentence can be modified as "Schools in Chennai are owned by the Chennai corporation or by private parties by receiving financial aid from the government." That seems to settle it. X.One SOS 12:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No that was just an opinion. Even I'm not clear with the statement. It will be better, if we consult some editors like Sodabottle and Ravichandar84. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vensatry is partly correct, I guess. The website of the Department of School Education is equally ambiguous but it explicitly states that a couple of laws enacted in 1981 and 1989 have brought the administration of education in corporation, municipality and panchayat schools under the direct control of the state government and their employees have been taken in as government servants. However, the maintenance of corporation school buildings (not municipal or panchayat schools) alone are undertaken by the municipal corporation.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 05:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the municipal corporation is something different from the Chennai corporation? Secret of success (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've revisited the Education section (the only section I've looked it) and I'm afraid I still don't really understand what it is trying to tell me. The first source in the section is now a dead link, which makes verification even more difficult, and the weasel words "well known" and "typically" are not sourced. I don't feel that I can alter or strike my delist, although I do appreciate the efforts made to improve this article, and it has improved. Thank you to the editors involved. DrKiernan (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I am trying to attract the attention towards sections that really need work, rather than dwelling on semantics in Education. Demographics, Administration, and Economy need updating and improvement of data. The Administration section, for example, mentioned 155 wards of the city, while in reality the number of wards is 200 since late 2011 (I updated that). This section also needs clarification about the assembly and parliamentary constituencies (I was unable to do so being unfamiliar with the local geography). As the expansion of corporation limit is recent, the section needs careful data update. Crime data is from 2005, later data is available. The demographics need "as of" clarifications. Data on poverty, if available, would be welcome. Economy is missing appropriate mention of unorganized sector. Also, inclusion of more recent data, if available, would be great. Overall, the article needs basically data update, and prose improvement here appropriate. Certain sections (such as History) are indeed of superior quality. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you. The "History" section does not make use an authoritative sources. The district website cannot be a reference in this case.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 15:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns[edit]

On a quick look at the article, I observed the following concerns:

  • "Development of transport and industry led to rapid urbanization in nineteenth and twentieth century."
  • "... and a hotbed of regional politics that tended to bank on Dravidian identity of the populace."

While the first sentence in the lead appears to be an WP:OR, the second appears to be an opinion, which is, however, not held by many.

Large chunks of text in the "History" section appear either unsourced or poorly sourced. There are many theories on the origin of the Pallavas and the theory of north-western origin is just one of them. However, the most widely held view is that the Pallavas were either of Telugu or Chola-Tamil ancestry. Mentioning it in the article constituttes a violation of WP:UNDUE.

Description of the Anti-Hindi agitations in the "History" also constitues a violation of WP:UNDUE. True, there were agitations in Chennai but there were agitations all over Tamil Nadu and many violent incidents in Madurai and all. To say that agitations in Chennai led to DMK victory would be too fanciful (nowhere does the article provided as source say that).-RaviMy Tea Kadai 18:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that mentioning Potti Sriramulu and the "Madras Manada movement" would be more relevant than the Anti-Hindi agitations.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 18:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on certain points. The article does not say that the Pallavas originated from the north-west. It says that they "migrated" from the north-west to the region around Chennai. The source verifies it. That is certainly relevant and not a sign of over-weightage. The anti-Hindi statement also does not say that Chennai was the sole base for the agitations. The movement did influence Chennai, one cannot deny that. Comparisons with Madurai tend to be quite useless. Secret of success (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the Wikipedia article on Pallavas and tell me whether it is mentioned anywhere that Pallavas migrated from the "north-west". Why Pallava article! Make a detailed detailed research on the topic and tell me if there is even shred of evidence that they came from the north-west. Where is the source you are talking of. We cannot have a WP:FA made wholly of fringe theories and opinions. I'd rather suggest that this article be delisted. It is necessary that it fulfills good-article criteria before going for an WP:FAC.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 15:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff on Anti-Hindi agitations are relevant to "Politics of Tamil Nadu" or "History of Tamil Nadu". They don't belong here. How did the movement influence Chennai, in particular, and not the rest of Tamil Nadu. Can you please elaborate. S. Muthiah, in his 400-odd page book "Madras Rediscovered" devotes barely a few paragraphs on the Anti-Hindi agitations.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 16:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I too feel that a mention of Potti Sriramulu and the "Madras Manada movement" would be of more relevance than the Anti-Hindi agitations, since the latter is more relevant to History of Tamil Nadu as a whole. Also there is no mention of Panagal Raja. —Vensatry (Ping me) 21:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, references to Panagal Raja might be another deviation from the subject of the article. Why Panagal Raja in the first place? True, he is credited with founding T. Nagar but people might also want to add the founding of Anna Nagar in 1969 and K. K. Nagar during K. Kamaraj's time. However, I think we might mention the 1948 expansion - the biggest ever in the history of Chennai when Saidapet, Adyar and Kodambakkam were included in the city.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 03:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I don't see any deviation from the subject. Panagal Raja was one of the key figures in the "Madras Manade movement" and the city of Madras underwent a lot of geographical changes and developments under his tenure. So I think a slight mention about him would not do any injustice to the article. Also I guess he has a greater significance than people who founded Anna Nagar, K. K. Nagar, Ashok Nagar, etc., —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A brief history of India (pg 172-173) - The Pallavas' origin is a matter of controversy. Totally ignored by the ancient history of the Tamil country, they suddenly appear on the scene. They were most probably Parthians, driven out of northwestern India. For a long time, their official language was Maharashtri Prakrit. They must have therefore resided in the west of India. Their defeat by Gautamiputra in the second century forced them to take refuge to the south of the Satavahanas' domain. Indian historians have made every effort to provide them with an autochthonous origin, but their efforts lack conviction. The first Pallavas appeared at Kanchi towards the third century. Officials of the Satavahana Empire, they declared their independence when the empire declined. They reigned for two centuries as petty sovereigns, up to the arrival of King Simhavishnu (570-600), with whom Pallava greatness begins. He subdued the traditional southern kingdoms (the Cheras, Cholas and Pandyas), conquered Sri Lanka and vanquished the Kalabhras.
This was my source, and I believe it verifies that. Secret of success (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
G. Jouveau-Dubreil, in his "The Pallavas", mentions about the origin of the Pallavas in the second chapter. Nowhere, is the Parthian origin theory alluded to though he does mention that the Pallavas might be of northern origins. P. T. Srinivasa Iyengar, too, does not say anything about the Parthian origin of the Pallavas. Now these people are fairly reliable scholars. The article Origin of Pallava, states three theories of origin for the Pallavas. Samar Abbas postulates that the Pallava-Chalukya enmity is because the Pallavas might have been related to the Parthians and Chalukyas to the Seleucids but himself accepts that such a theory is not widely believed. Danielou says that the origin of the Pallavas is a matter of controversy and only that they were "most probably" Parthians. Also, it is known that the Pallavas had spent over four centuries in the Telugu country before establishing their capital at Kanchipuram. So, mentioning the Parthian-origin might not just be an over-representation of a particular theory it might also be a marked deviation from the subject of the article.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 07:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that sentence, but be it as that may, the source does not become unreliable whatsoever. Secret of success (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was never questioning the reliability of the source. Alan Danielou is, indeed, a famous historian; I was only questioning the appropriateness of adding the stuff in this article. It would be a marked deviation from the main topic and would also lead to a tug-o-war with supporters of other theories.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 03:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All right then, what about the Anti-Hindi part? I don't think its a question of comparison with Madurai or the state of Tamil Nadu, but just if it influenced Chennai or not. Did they have a negligible impact on the city for deserving a removal from the article? I certainly think not. Secret of success (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article you provided as source only speaks of Anti-Hindi agitations in Tamil Nadu and the impact it had on state politics as a whole. From the source,we may never be able to gauge what impact the protests in Chennai had amongst all the protests made in different parts of Tamil Nadu. I feel that it might be a strong argument against the article. This is my opinion, though; however, as I've observed, if you can get some people to support you can circumvent anything in Wikipedia. You might also be the future recipient of a barnstar from User:Sodabottle for contesting my opinions here :-)-RaviMy Tea Kadai 11:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one's trying to circumvent anything here. This is not the Tamil Nadu government where people have a license to screw things up entirely if they have a wide, though unreasonable support. Preceding to the discussion, this article calls Chennai "a city once bitterly opposed to the northerner’s tongue" and also says that "It has been a full decade since the last anti-Hindi agitation in Chennai." Further, the wiki article of the agitations says that "On 26 January, 50,000 students from Madras city's colleges marched from Napier park to the Government secretariat at Fort St. George and unsuccessfully tried to petition the chief minister." referencing a book titled "Anna: The life and times of C. N. Annadurai." Is a further look-into required for this? Secret of success (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But I see that you hadn't provided the article as a citation did you. The Wiki article also mentions an Anti-Hindi conference in Tiruchi. Besides, one of the most popular agitations took place at Dalmiapuram.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 17:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry? This is not a comparison with Trichy or Madurai, like I said. Its just a issue of whether it influenced the city or not. Secret of success (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I'm telling. The Ramachandra Guha article which you had cited on the page only tells us of the agitations in Madras State (not Madras city) and its influence on the politics of Tamil Nadu. If you can find articles or books which explain why Chennai, is especially famous for its anti-Hindi stance and Dravidian politics please add them. If you have the weight of reliable references in your support no one is going to question the veracity of such points.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 17:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so your issue was that the sources given here were not placed in the article. It is done. Secret of success (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can we get an update from the reviewers/main editors on how work on the article is progressing? Once it is felt that the majority of the work needed has been completed, it would be appreciated if the main editors could ping the reviewers who have made comments (SpacemanSpiff, Dr.Kiernan, etc) and ask them to return and review their comments. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The work seems to be going rather slowly. While the problems with references and prose have undergone a nearly complete patch up, the synthesis issue in the education section, and the verification of text by sources is far from complete and requires lot of work. Secret of success (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that not much has happened on the article over the past month, do you think the article should continue to remain at FARC until the remaining work has been completed or should it be delisted? Dana boomer (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure of whether my opinion would be valid as I have contributed barely anything after the review. It would be cool if any one else who actually did so, takes it up. I shall provide mine following that. With regards, Secret of success 14:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is quite valid. I'm going to be pinging everyone else who commented here, but it would be great if you share your opinion on whether or not this should remain featured. Dana boomer (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist It really hurts to say so, but the article is not at the level of FA. It lacks proper coverage—lacks information on poverty, slums, overpopulation. A large metropolis in the subcontinent, these are very pertinent problems. Culture section needs expansion, many cultural aspects (art, architecture, any local customs etc) are missing. MoS issues in references persist. It is unfortunate that we could not get a group of editors really interested to develop the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I'm coming back after a two month break, so I haven't kept up with the changes to the article, but I just briefly reviewed the article and there are a lot of problem areas, especially with regard to comprehensiveness and due/undue aspects; there are also some phrasing issues that provide a misleading interpretation. I'll list a few examples here:
    "The Madras High Court, whose jurisdiction extends across Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, is the highest judicial authority in the state as well as the city." -- The Madras High Court is located in Madras, but the judicial authority is not tied to the city, rather to the territories of TN/Pondicherry. There is also no source for this statement, as [65] which follows the next sentence is unrelated.
    Excessive content is devoted to relatively unimportant topics such as the via points on National Highways etc, while historically important aspects such as the Madras Public Libraries Act which resulted in the first public library system within India don't find mention. Likewise, there's no coverage of architecture (the earlier version of the article had some related images), but we have a laundry list of every newspaper, tv channel that is available in the city. Similarly, we have three images from the transport section, including one of an "air conditioned bus", that account for less than 10% of the city's bus fleet, and much less than the more ubiquitous autorikshaws etc. (These are just random examples, there could be more significant ones if one just spends a little time looking through the article)
    Another major problem is that the article appears to be a collection of snippets from various news sources, thereby suffering from recentism. While the issues highlighted are sourced, the problem here is the due/undue aspect; given that comprehensive sources are not used, this does the article a disservice in terms of the information presented.
  • Unfortunately, I haven't had the on-wiki time over the past few months to help address some of the concerns I raised last September (most of which continue to be concerns). However, at this point, it is better to delist the article, and build it up from scratch, take to GA level first (I think it's at a B-class level currently) and then bring to FAC for a fresh review. —SpacemanSpiff 04:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Chennai/archive2&oldid=1144392315"