Talk:Rameswaram

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleRameswaram has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 5, 2012Good article nomineeListed

Removing content[edit]

User:24.136.24.38, please do not remove the introduction sentence. And don't keep reverting me. Rameswaram is first a town in India. And then a piligrimage site. Please explain. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving content to Ramanathaswamy BILLU Temple, Rameswaram[edit]

I'm moving most of the temple related contents to the temple article. I could revert it back, if any of the editors find it important to stay in the temple. This way, we can both talk about the town in a secular way and be able to talk about the temple in a religious way. Balajiviswanathan 20:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tombs of Cain & Abel[edit]

Paul Theroux in The Great Railway Bazaar mentions that the purported tombs of Cain and Abel are located here. Can anyone confirm this? Brutannica (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

beach of rameswaram[edit]

Guys , i have added description about rameswaram beach in the geography paragraph. Anyone please provide suitable links to support that. I couldn't find any references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.196.206.222 (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rameswaram/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Titodutta (talk · contribs) 08:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article.

Before we start[edit]

A) How I'll proceed
That's how we should go ahead– slowly but steadily.
  • I'll keep on adding points as I'll go.
  • Active participation of nominator and primary contributors of this article will be highly appreciated.
  • If no one joins the review discussion, after waiting for 7–12 days, I'll assess the current version and will try to to finish the review quickly by adding all the points.


B) For article editors
  • Add {{Done}} etc templates below when you have completed a requested task! Similarly you can add {{Not done}} etc! See more similar templates.
  • It is requested not to use Strikethrough in this GA review page to show that a task has been completed (optional).
  • If you see I (reviewer) is not active in the review discussion, please send me a message in my talk page to ping me!
C) Contacting reviewer
You can contact reviewer any time during the review!
  • Talk page: You can contact me in my talk page User talk:Titodutta
  • Email: You can also email me during this review.
  • Google Plus (experimental) If you don't want to post some private comment in Wikipedia talk page/review page and also don't want to reveal your email address to me, you can contact me in Google Plus.

That's all, hope to have a good discussion ahead!--Tito Dutta ✉ 08:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Importance marker[edit]

Importance marker
I have been experimenting with this importance marker. I first tried this in Talk:Independence Day (India)/GA1. Please concentrate specially on those issues which have been marked of High importance. Multiple unsolved and/or unanswered High important issues can lead to result GA fail.

Section 01[edit]

Additional citation needed
  • Importance: High
    • Legend section!
      •  Done
Image alt
  • Importance: Med
    • Add image alt in at least few images, see WP:ALT for details!
      •  Done
  • MOS:TIES
    • Most titles are single words (and italicised) - which ones are referred here?
  • Importance: Has not been tagged

Question: Are you using British English or American English? --Tito Dutta ✉ 08:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made few changes --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reference style
  • Importance: High

I can not understand the reference style in the article. Are you following sfn, harvnb or cite book? --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a very quick look. I think we are seeing a mixture of cite web and no template (but in effect Harvard style) inline citations here (the no template but in effect Harvard style is being followed for book references). Mixture of citation styles may not be a problem for GA (so far as I know); but if you eventually target FA, this would be a problem. However, I am not cent percent sure in this regard. To be on the safe side, you may consider re-doing the references, to make consistent use of some specific pattern. Safest (not necessarily the best) would be to use some form of templates rather than non-template citations. You can ask for a second opinion/third opinion.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition if Harvard ref style is followed, particular pages should not be linked "Notes" (source) section (this is mainly practised for cite book) !--Tito Dutta ✉ 05:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I followed as in Ganesha, where books are quoted as refs and web/news are inline and come as notes. The reference section holds all the books to ease editing. Also all web references are in templates, while book ones are linked in reference section(the actual page where reference is found rather than the book link). Let me know for thoughtsSsriram mt (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I see even the FA version of Ganesha has some inconsistencies. That FAC was in 2007; I guess the FA candidacy is more strict now. I am going to ask Redtigerxyz (primary author of Ganesha) for commenting here. IMO, Ahalya has the ideal consistent us of Harvard style. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen that the style "books are quoted as refs and web/news are inline and come as notes" on many articles earlier, but this style is not in much use now.--Redtigerxyz Talk 03:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will change to Harv style - it looks sleek. Ssriram mt (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the article India as well for reference style help, if you are going to follow Harvard style consistently. We just recently converted the reference style to Harvard style (using sfn) in the article Mother India.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or you can use cite book for all too! It is easier to follow references in cite web! --Tito Dutta ✉ 02:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will complete it in a day or two. Just to maintain sanity, i am doing it in my sandbox - will periodically update the article to have sanity. Ssriram mt (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take time. No need to hurry! --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. One reference was dup in the original.Ssriram mt (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2011 census
  • Importance: High

For demographics, add information from 2011 census, if available

Provisional totals not available from reliable sources. Ssriram mt (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cr rupees
  • Importance: Med

What is Cr rupees? --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ssriram mt (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is Tamil script, but, I can not see Indic script template.
 Done - removed the script. Ssriram mt (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rail Bridge– is it necessary to use capital letter? --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneSsriram mt (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historical map of Adam's Bridge and environs, prior to the cyclone of 1964 – do you need "historical" when you are mentioning the year?
 Done
  • 1 citation needed.
 Done
  • Education section is too short to make a section. Can you expand it a bit? Possible? --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done There are only a few schools in there, so scope of education is not possible. Education and services merged.
  • Temple– first letter cap and small mixed up! One more citation needed! --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Corrected - when referred as common noun, small letter is used.
  • Famous citizens section is unreferenced, in addition it is too short to make a section! --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - removed - puppet. Ssriram mt (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Missile Man Of India" Dr.APJ Abdul Kalam was born. – can not see anywhere other than lead. Unsourced. You can change to A. P. J. Abdul Kalam and link it.
 Done - puppet edit, removed.
  • Not very important, but still if possible add citation for along with other major broadband internet service providers like Tata VSNL, Bharti and Reliance. --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Additionally have expanded the lead and made some minor corrections. Ssriram mt (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Template:Commonscat– Do not place this template in a section containing columns. not a major issue. Still if possible fix it. Currently there is not any external link section. If you can add 1–2 relevant EL, you can place the template there! --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Done
Additionally, date reference formats and hyphen adjustments are complete. Ssriram mt (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer's edits[edit]

Assessment template[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Tito Dutta ✉ 12:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA????[edit]

I really wonder how this article managed to clear the GAR. The article lacks any section on "History" and thus clearly fails criteria no 3. The article lacks extremely important facts like when the temple was built (in historical times). P. S. I am not pointing out something totally obscure- there are plenty of good, reliable sources on the history of Rameswaram. Secondly, two of the images in the infobox are of places quite outside the municipal limits of Rameswaram town. (One of them, uploaded by me, is of fishing boats near Pamban town which is situated on the western edge of Pamban Island and outside Rameswaram town. The other is of Ramban Railway Bridge which is no-way connected to Rameswaram town).-RaviMy Tea Kadai 02:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with you about History.
  • "when the temple was built (in historical times)" is covered - "The temple in its current structure was built during the 12th century by Pandya Dynasty." Establishment of the temple is difficult to determine. However, earliest known reference can be put in a brief sentence or two.
  • Images, as well as text of places outside Rameswaram should be removed. Dhanushkodi section can be dropped as outside the town. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dhanuskodi is part of Rameswaram municipality. Ssriram mt (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • will expand on history + that of the temple.
  • pamban bridge is the only land link - most of the british historic links speak about the lack of transport infra as one of the reasons making it inaccessible(possibly to quote the importance of the bridge they constructed too). In the places where it is mentioned, the source of connection is mentioned - prefer to retain it.
  • it has to be noted that unlike other towns which had historical references within the same boundary as of the municipal limits now, Rameswaram has always remained synonymous with its neighbours. Dhanuskodi was one by on its own before 1964, but almost non-existent now.
  • reg the montage image - the image of boat has wrong description as that of Rameswaram. - will remove it.Ssriram mt (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good if you can create a separate section on "History". The temple (I guess) was extensively renovated in the 1890s by Bhaskara Sethupathi. I'll search for the sources and provide them.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 16:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Ssriram mt (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Pamban Island" in the lead is not linked. Besides, in "Municipal Administration" section, there might be unnecessary capitalizations - like, municipality and panchayat union in "According to the Madras Presidency Panchayat Act of 1885, Rameswaram was declared a Panchyat Union during British times. It became a township during 1958 and was declared a Municipality in 2004."-RaviMy Tea Kadai 03:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I request the participants to cooperate with me in rectifying these shortcomings.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 11:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the above discussed issues, there are a few MOS issues:

  • Newspaper references like Hindu and TOI should be italicized.
 Done
  • Why "Reliance networks" is italicized?
 Done
  • In FN #70, there is a minor issue with respect to page number(s)

—Vensatry (Ping me) 17:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked links.. which one is not working?Ssriram mt (talk)

Anachronisms[edit]

An example: "The major religion followed in Rameswaram is Hinduism. Being a Hindu pilgrimage centre, majority of the visitor to Rameswaram are Hindus. There is a minority of Christians, predominantly from the fishing community of the region"

Aside from the obvious poor English phrasing, the above is sourced to a work published in 1882, which wasn't reliable then and certainly cannot be used to verify a set of statements formed in the present tense. Worse still, the Sfn link doesn't work. - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or "With 22km of dredging remaining, the project is currently held by a Supreme Court order seeking the Government to clarify the status of the bridge as a national monument[88]." In this statement there is a WP:REFPUNCT problem, a lack of precision in stating which government, a broken Sfn and a lack of time context, such as use of the {{As of}} template. The {{convert}} template would probably not have been amiss either. No offence intended, but such things as these, when added to the numerous points above, make me wonder whether this should ever have passed GA. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point(s) in the previous paras is addressed. The references to small towns like Rameswaram are always sparse(and historic/tourism oriented) - the base point is - it is a Hindu religous town. I am not leaving things to assumption here, but a rough check on the visitor base with the number of state run buses and trains would prove the volume of visitors for a town with a population of 35k. I will fix other issues pointed out. Ssriram mt (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ssriram mt, firstly, please accept my apologies. For some reason I have got drawn into two recent GAs of which you were a major contributor. It is not a witch-hunt and in fact I think that you asked me to assist with the other article in the run up to the GA nom (and I said that I didn't have the time or the expertise re: geographic articles). I really do appreciate the considerable effort that you have put into this stuff. I also note that the GA reviews for both articles involve several different people who have a decent amount of experience. I've never reviewed a GA nom and I accept that it is easy to criticise, which is perhaps how my comments come across. All of that said, and hopefully accepted, there are real problems here and at the other place. I realise that the standards are not those of featured articles but there are numerous quite serious issues per the criteria. No-one's fault as such because both articles are way, way better than once they were.

"Rough checks" mean nothing, especially when it involves original research of passenger statistics. And the fact that refs for small towns are sparse is not an excuse: WP:V is one of the Five Pillars - if you cannot source it reliably, it should not be here. - Sitush (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are rewritten - a set of references induced. Ssriram mt (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Montage[edit]

The montage doesn't look good, especially with so much gap between the images. Any suggestions? -Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a gap, but a skyline. I will modify it. Ssriram mt (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Oops! As I said above, this seems to be another example of a recently-promoted Indic article that is full of Harvard citation errors. Using Ucucha's tool, there are swathes of red appearing. I neither have the time nor the aptitude to fix them right now but hopefully someone can resolve in order to avoid a delisting. - Sitush (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Ucucha/HarvErrors for the tool. - Sitush (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Missed to reply here - all reds have been removed. Ssriram mt (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rameswaram&oldid=1211154341"