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 not promoted by User:Dana boomer 16:06, 1 March 2013 [1].

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries, Wikipedia:Noticeboard for India-related topics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tamil Eelam, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tamil civilization, User:Nmadhubala, User:Srirangam99, User:Venu62

I am nominating this featured article for review because this article had been rated FA in September 2006. Since then, the article has undergone lots of edits. The article underwent an FA-review in late 2008 and was "Kept". However, since then, I observe that plenty of additions and removals have been made. Too much unsourced and POV stuff has been added that this time around, I don't think that the article satisfies the minimum sourcing criteria. Concerns have also been frequenty raised.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 03:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article criteria mentioned as issues in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. Dana boomer (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. No work has been done with no concerns addressed above. JJ98 (Talk) 05:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning to delist. I am not satisfied at all by the current state of the article. The prose has lost its proffesional quality, as well as some neutrality issues here and there. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the long pending POV. Checking prose. Somebody please elaborate on the sourcinng problem other than formatting (that also will be done soon). Hometech (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see some progress. From the talk page there is clearly an issue with nature of Chola influence/control in SE Asia. Many of the Sastri refs are doubled with more recent ones, & a long term diff over 3 years doesn't actually show much problemmatic addition to my inexpert eye. But I think access to specialized recent works such as Chopar et al will be needed to save this I think. Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wot dat diff is i dont get. I reduced some of Sastri. Hometech (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Does anyone have further comments on the current state of this article? It looks like Hometech did a good amount of work on the article - have the sourcing and neutrality concerns been addressed? Dana boomer (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality is mostly done. New sources have been used, I shall try a few more. busy in real life so just a day or two more.Hometech (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. I see large paragraphs without citations or wikilinks (Religion section), one- and two-sentence paragraphs scattered about, and sloppy writing:

• "Jayamkondar's masterpiece" promotional
• "the sculptors worked with great freedom ... to achieve a classic grace and grandeur" promotional
• "Somesvara I tried to wriggle out of Chola domination" word choice?
• "The Western Chalukyas mounted several unsuccessful attempts to engage the Chola emperors in war and except for a brief occupation of Vengi territories between 1118–1126, all their other attempts ended in failure with successive Chola emperors routing the armies of the Chalukyas at various places in many wars." Huge sentence
• "Despite this loss in influence and power, it is unlikely that the Cholas lost total grip of the territory around Uraiyur, their old capital, as Vijayalaya, when he rose to prominence hailed from this geographical area." Clunky use of commas, as used in this sentence, which was taken from the article, makes it very difficult, or challenging, for the reader to determine the meaning of the sentence.
• "There is only one recorded instance of civil disturbance during the entire period of Chola reign." Why?

I could dig for more, but it wouldn't really be worthwhile until the sourcing is improved. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Dana boomer (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.