Self-nomination. Peer review. This article has been changed in terms of copyediting, referencing, comprehensiveness, and layout. Got much-needed help and critique from User:Tintin1107 and User:Raghu.kuttan. Saravask 09:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object – sorry to have missed PR.

1. I think the article needs to be summarised further since it stands at about 44kb (raw). Most sections are long, and it would be more productive to copy the same into main articles and sumarise the same here. It should not take you more than a day.
3. A light copyedit is needed.
4. Reduce the image size and avoid starting images with left aligned images.
5. The history section should come before geography.
6. District map needed
7. Kuttanad (below sea level) feature missing.
8. I personally feel that matter in the lead should not be interrupted by footnotes.
9. Nothing on sports?
10. Kerala borders Tamil Nadu and Karnataka to the east and northeast and the Indian Ocean islands of Lakshadweep and the Maldives to the west. -- I think the Maldives lie to the south. You also missed Mahe (Pondicherry).
11. Is the great Hornbill photo taken out in kerala? There are some great nature photos on Marayoor btw.
12. Sundar also has a great fishing nets photo.
13. Ernakulam is the judicial capital of the state. plz mention

=Nichalp «Talk»= 10:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe I addressed all these points here. Saravask 18:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. In response to Nichalp's first point, I have the article (minus the infobox/Notes/References/Ex.Links) currently clocked at 28kb. --maclean25 06:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well done on the copyedit, a few points: 1. The =Trivia= material should be integrated with the text 2. =Related topics= renamed to ==See also==. Can you also link to wikiquote and wikitravel? The portal is repeated twice. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • [13]. Saravask 10:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks support =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support Its an awesome, awesome article. Its beautiful. Rama's Arrow 17:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support. As pointed out by Nichalp, some things may need tweaking, but this article has improved greatly in the past few weeks. Not that long ago, I took out a superfluous and poorly dones section on festivals while thinking to myself that the article had degenerated into a specious collection of one-line sections and hopeless lists. Excellent work bringing this article back, but may need just a few minor adjustments at the moment, but nothing so severe that it shouldn't be able to pass FA in a week of conscientious editing. RyanGerbil10 06:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, greatly improved from a short while ago. Andrew Levine 15:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Small Finnish cities are not notable enough. Oh, you meant Kerala. Support. This is much better than Helsinki, which I nominated for a featured article myself. JIP | Talk 20:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I didn't know that such a nice article was brewing in my backyard! -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: can you get hold of the state's extreme temperatures? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've not found reliable sources for this, despite looked around for an hour. I've have even searched the Indian Meteorological Department's website. Someone else has, perhaps?
• Support. Such a great article. Gflores ^Talk 18:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. B-e-a-utiful. --Khoikhoi 07:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Translating Image:Caminho maritimo para a India.png into English and using it in the History section would be appropriate. Also, consider using images from commons:Kerala. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I think Image:Caminho maritimo para a India.png is too specialized to appear in Kerala — this was also true (by comments others made) of figures/maps I drew on the Geography of Kerala — two of the three were too specialized. Also, I am the one who loaded up and overhauled commons:Kerala (check the edit history, for example); I'm familiar w/ all the images there, and I think I choose the best images. Let me know if there are even better ones elsewhere. Thanks. Saravask 03:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Peer review I | Peer review II

Self-nomination. This is about a Bengali poet. Please feel free to be incisive in your constructive objections and criticisms. It is a large article (~ 70 kb), but is much smaller if one ignores/deletes all the referencing. Saravask 09:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

For quotations we do have some templates that you can use in place of the tables if you'd like - see Category:Quotation_templates. They look decent enough as is though. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 10:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Here are my observations.

• The size of bangla font is too small. Can it be increased?
• I am yet to see the gray-box usage of quotations in Featured Articles. Confirm it from WP:MOS and make changes, if necessary.

Saffron and History of saffron are both featured and use them. Saravask 20:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• A link to Charles Hardinge can be added in the Photograph summary in the lead paragraph.

Rest looks fine. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

About the font: You would need to get another Bangla font and set your browser to recognise the font as the default for Bangla. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't knew that the problem was with my browser. I saw similar problem with the {{user bn-1}} template that appears on my userpage and edited in order to make it look big enough. If its Ok with normal browser, I have no objections. Good cleanup since I last viewed it. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object: fairuse images need fair use rationale (eg dancing girl). poetry section layout is ugly: too many images and boxes stacked on top of, and next to, each other. can it be tidied? maybe those grey quote boxes should just be replaced by normal indented text to help address this issue?
• and 2 new issues in Politics section: there is a HUGE blank space before the pgraph starting "Tagore also lashed out against the orthodox ...", and there is a couple of stacked images there, please spread them out. Zzzzz 12:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Layout has been fixed. ([19]) Saravask 00:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

All those non-PD images already had fair use rationale. Take another look at the image pages. Saravask 20:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object -- 1. The article could be summarised further. I've ignored the referencing, but there's too much detail here which can easily be moved to daughter articles. 2. Avoid so many quotations. 3) " Dancing Girl" and "The Hero" images overlap with the following section heading. Please left-align. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What sections need shortening? I'll be shortening the "Santiniketan", "Short stories", and "Politics" sections. Let me know if others need to be condensed. Saravask 20:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait till you finish the summary. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Grey boxes, most quotations deleted. All images right-aligned. ([20]) Saravask 22:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Once summarising is done, please let me know on my talk. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Two sections under "Works" need to be gutted-out and re-written before they can be summarized; I'm in the middle of doing this, so it will take another day or two before the summarization is done. Saravask 22:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Support -- much neater now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support Conditional Support : Really good article. However, you have my support only if you can address these issues:

1. Shantiniketan section is really confusing. It seems like you have so much information in there that has nothing to do with "Shantiniketan" or his life there. For example, what is the utility of how much money he was making in this section? Then you go on to talk about his travels to USA in this section. It seems like a lot of information in this section can either be thrown out or merged with some other section. I recommend creating a section called "International travels" and merging all his travels in that.
2. Your lead in for the last years section is weak. The entire first paragraph about his views on differences amongst humans has nothing to do with his last years the way it is worded. Maybe you are trying to say that "in the last years of his life he viewed human differences as shallow"? No idea. The second paragraph has a lead that should be for the first paragraph of that section
3. Is their a reason why their is a section "England and Selidah". I could not really see any connection between the two things and am wondering why do you have a section named that.

--Blacksun 04:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. All the online citations/refs check out. A random fact-check revealed no errors. This is an example of an article going above and beyond what the feature article criteria demands. --maclean25 06:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent work.--Dwaipayanc 05:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This article looks great after the extensive copyediting by Saravask over the last few months. --Ragib 17:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support my heartiest congratulations to Saravask and others for their great work. Rama's Arrow 18:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Most of the issues detailed by me previously have been addressed. The article is now overall good but with some issues, though not critical. I would be happy to see them addressed. First, the "Early Life" section shows his signature, but does not tell in what year it was taken. People's signature change quite susbtantially throughout their life, hence it is important to tell the period it corresponds to. Of course its under "Early Life", but still a bit more detail would help. Another minor thing is that the name of the image concerned is just "Signature.gif", which could have been more informative and less general (no need to act on this). Also, the second paragraph of same section has too many mdashs which seem to break the flow quite frequently. At some places I believe, a comma would be more suitable. The "Shantiniketan" section mentions "Institute for Rural Reconstruction" and says that it was renamed "Shantiniketan". It looks like there won't be more to it than the Shantiniketan article itself. Either create a redirect, or remove the link. Also, I believe the article no longer includes Chinese Text. It used to be in the caption of "Tagore-THU.jpg" the last I remember, but it looks fixed now and there aren't any more mentions of it. So the Chinese Text Rendering Support template can be done with. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my sluggish response. I don't know when the sig was written; I've requested Dwaipayanc (the uploader) to clarify this. Also, the "Institute for Rural Reconstruction" was renamed "Shriniketan" ("Abode of Plenty"), not "Santiniketan" ("Abode of Peace"). Saravask 18:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support. Well-written, comprehensive and informative article with good use of references and images. Green Giant 02:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This is a good article on the single most important personality in the whole of Bengali culture, though I find this is not emphasised in the article. Loom91 13:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Specially because this is a very hard topic to grapple. I agree with the point made by Loom91, but it's a minor issue.--ppm 23:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

80.194.166.202 07:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC) louise (edit comment)

Kochi is a coastal city in southern India. It is one of the important seaports of India, and the commerical hub of the state of Kerala. The article underwent a peer review in May this year, during which many issues were raised by several experienced editors, and were addressed. The article is also a selected article on Portal:India. I believe it meets the criteria for a featured article. I request the community's support in making it one. Thank you. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}08:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support nowRlevse 11:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Minor object footnotes go immediately after puntcuation with no space in between, not in the middle of the sentence.Rlevse 21:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Fixed. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}05:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Way too many pictures. Rama's arrow 00:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've removed the two gratuitous images in the Notes section. The rest seem to all be useful in illustrating the article, and it doesn't feel crowded (just colorful). —Cuiviénen 03:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support I was closely following the article's peer review. I also read the article in its entirety before voting here (copyediting alongside) and feel that it meets the FA criteria though it could use some copyediting help from native speakers. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Actually the "Notes" section may have pictures, becoz there is no clashing text to pay attention to. There is a need to remove pictures from the main body of text - they are brilliant pictures, but they have a clustering effect with the text, which kills their appeal to an extent. You better leave the pictures to be displayed on Commons. I also agree with Sundar that there is a need for more copyediting - grammatical errors, poor sentences need fixing - please see user:Tony1's copyediting guide. Nevertheless, I think its pretty much ready for FA status. Support Rama's arrow 12:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Update - I've moved two of the pictures to the "Notes" section. The text has also been peped-up a bit.-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support A detailed city map of Kochin might be something that can be added to the article as one becomes available. AreJay 03:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Will do as soon as a free one becomes available.--thunderboltz 09:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - The article is close to FA. I would like some clarification on 2 points. In the demographics section - "Kochi is considered the safest city in India for women" - Is there any other reference than the one cited? A source giving actual data showing Kochi to be the "safest in India" would help. In the educaton section - are you sure that education there follows 10+2+3 followed by enrollment in general or professional degree programmes. That is not the case in the rest of India where it is just 10+2 followed with degree programmes. Please double check on that. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 07:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Update-I've clarified the same in the article now. Please check.--thunderboltz 09:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Support - I have had another read through the article. Both my points are adressed now. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

This article is embarrassingly hotch-potchy and quite unworthy of FA status. I had attempted to participate in the article’s peer preview, (the lateness of these comments is not due to unreasonable sloth); that intervention, couched in language far, far milder than this, was fruitless. At that time, my assessment had been that, even if the subject-matter is not familiar to most reviewers, the article would eventually be weeded out, based merely upon:

• the manifest lack of focus;
• a cursory reading of the page;
• the very presence of, and the cluelessness evidenced by, the “Integration in media” section.

I totally and genuinely appreciate the amount of effort that has gone into crafting this article, especially when I consider that the editors have neither any special interest nor otherwise any knowledge of the subject, but have apparently created the page largely from a particular book ("Patel, a life") that they happened to come across: refer this to learn that the "entirety" of this article is from that book, a fact anyway evident from the citations sections. Adequate recourse to the few other books mentioned in the "References" section would have prevented major factual inaccuracies, such as the one about the Instrument of Accession detailed below. FA status pre-supposes standards that simply do not obtain here, and I cannot forbear any longer from passing further adverse comment.

[edit] Major problems

1. Lack of focus: Article tries to address all political adjustments (both territorial and internal) that India has witnessed between 1947 and TODAY. Naturally, this results in a hotch-potch description of British India, princely states, partition, integration, provincial reorganisation, suppression of various insurgencies, and even political movies!! The page should concentrate on the "Political integration of India" and leave aside insurgencies, movies and the internal reorganization of the unified Indian republic. This suggestion was made by numerous people during peer-preview, but was summarily rejected.
2. Lack of depth: Perhaps consequent to the above, a pervasive lack of depth and detail is evident. The article dwells (relatively) long on the "Accession" phase of integration, which was accomplished before 15/Aug/1947 (except for three states) and briefly dismisses (in a one-paragraph-section) the details of the far more important "Merger" phase. Compare this with V.P. Menon’s own book, which devotes 120 and 370 pages respectively to these phases.
3. Lack of composition skills. Some examples below, but mostly connected to lack of focus. Why not follow a simple "input-process-output" formula:
   • briefly describe the initial situation
   • describe the events that are the subject of this page
   • briefly describe what finally obtained

[edit] Major factual errors (and lacunae)

With reference to the "Instrument of Accession" sub-section:

1. There were not one but three different versions of the "Instrument of Accession"; every ruler signed whichever version was appropriate to them. Surely such detail is what makes an encyclopedia special?
2. None of these three versions contemplated a "Privy Purse"; the very idea was well in the future and formed part of the negotiations of the later "Covenants of MERGER" (1947-49).
3. After accession and before merger, the princely states remained sovereign entities distinct from India. Hence the question of their sovereign rulers being "equal citizens of India" did not arise. Nor indeed was the Govt of India competent to comment upon their internal arrangements or the retention of properties by rulers. This also came up only at the time of MERGER (1947-49).
   • In light of this, the following sentence is also inexplicable: While negotiating with the states, Patel and Menon also emphasized that monarchs who signed on willingly would be retained as constitutional heads of state….
4. The "Standstill Agreement", a very important document signed by all the rulers at the same time as the IoA, finds no mention

References: "Integration of the Indian states" by V.P. Menon. Orient Longman, 2nd Edition (1985), pp.109-111

[edit] Further nitpicks

1. Excessive editorializing coupled with somewhat inadequate context in a verbose but badly-written introduction (before the "contents" box comes up)
2. India’s near-neighbors are dispersed between the next two sections ("British India" and "The states") and chronology is given a toss. Also, if you want to talk about Ceylon (never under the "Viceroy of India"), why leave out Malaya / Aden (formerly under the Viceroy), especially when you do talk about Burma (ditto)?
3. Again, chronology tossed out in the "Process of Accession" section. Surely the first para should find place in the next section? Even the heading is a bit of a misnomer.
4. Exactly how much peacocking does a man of Vallabhbhai Patel’s eminence need? And yet, unmentioned is the point that one of his main qualifications was that he hailed from present-day Gujarat, where close to 400 of the 550-odd princely states were located.
5. In "Patel’s diplomacy", again, how does Patel promise constitutional guarantees for "Privy purses" BEFORE even the Accession phase is undertaken?
6. Again, in the "Accession of the states" section, we find inexplicable mention of privy purses.
7. The "Hyderabad" section is quite, quite incoherent

I think that will do for now -- anyway, nearly everyone in the peer-preview were of the opinion that "States reorganization" and subsequent sections should not find place on this page. I will end with some sample sentences:

• With the arrival of Lord Louis Mountbatten as the Viceroy of India in early 1947, the British government under Prime Minister Clement Attlee made a clear indication that the independence of India was imminent.[1]
  • So his arrival was the first hint? Also, the link provided (Note-1, one of the few that are not from "Patel, a life") is not relevant to this matter at all!
• Mountbatten was also a credible figure because Jawaharlal Nehru and Patel had asked him to become the Governor General of India
  • Now we know what made Mountbatten "credible". The preceding sentence does not serve to improve the matter. Also, whither Gandhi / Congress??
• Patel's opinions were not India's policy, nor were they shared by Nehru, but they were angered at Jinnah's courting the princes of Jodhpur, Bhopal and Indore.[16]
  • Eh???

This page deals with a complex topic and possibly will never be ready for the Main Page. In any case, it needs much reading and sustained hard work over a period of two weeks or more, before the article becomes worthy of even being proposed for FA status. This critique is based on the version of the article available today, 15/Feb/06. Regards, ImpuMozhi 05:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response from Sundar

I'm sorry. But, if I have to assume good faith, I'm really surprised by your comment above. Your edits to the peer review were only [43] , [44], [45], and [46], all of which centering around the need to limit the focus of the article to not touch upon post-independence reorganisation, if I understand it right. And you've not carried on with even that after the nominator responded and made the changes. You haven't voted either way at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Political integration of India. Now, you're coming up with a list of three allegations, which I quote below.

• "the manifest lack of focus;
• a cursory reading of the page;
• the very presence of, and the cluelessness evidenced by, the “Integration in media” section."

IMO, all of the above are very subjective. Now, you've raised a few factual inaccuracies that need a response. I'd leave that to the authors. But, IMO, you should've raised those during peer review or FAC. And you've produced this link in your above comment, which is an edit to Talk:Mahatma Gandhi. I do not know if whatever happenned there has prompted and why should that prompt these comments . -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Your comment in the edit summary of your first edit in this seems to indicate that your displeasure with something else has prompted this. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"What was required by way of Integration was the institution of a distinct judiciary in the states-unions, abolition of the multiplicity of currencies, stampage and inland customs (as in passport-customs) and such other issues, which in fact are not touched upon in this article. I shall make the required additions if you permit."

Sorry, I missed the above comment in this edit. It's a good point and if it was not addressed by others, you could've gone ahead and made the additions yourself. After all, it was during peer review. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In note of your point above, I had incorporated the mention of the formation of a unified judiciary, a single code of law, united currency, financial policy, Indian administrative service and police service in the MERGER para after ImpuMozhi had made the comment on the peer review. Rama's Arrow 19:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response of Rama's arrow

I'm fairly certain, after taking good time to fully understand what user:ImpuMozhi is saying, that I strongly disagree with him. I also have a harder time assuming good faith or respecting this critique as any genuine effort to improve the article. Let me make clear why I feel this way:

[edit] Intense subjective arrogance and negativity

1. Over 95% of user:ImpuMozhi's objections are purely subjective. If the editors were guilty of being clueless, possessing no focus, depth or composition skills, does he seriously believe this article would have passed through a 3-week peer review to become an FA by 16/0 vote????
2. This person (user:ImpuMozhi) believes this article will possibly will never be ready for the Main Page - Most of his objections are on small errors that have crept in unnoticed -I cannot understand why he intended to do this in such a bombastic manner, filled with negativity and prophesizing this article's doom. He had to do this by creating a special page, with disrespect and insulting attitudes towards the editors and in a way, which he was sure, would "lose friends and alienate people." I don't buy this over-dramatism.
3. ImpuMozhi's endorsement of my work on my talk page: Hi, I am just visiting to say that I greatly admire the amount of work you have put into crafting this article over the past few weeks. Very good work indeed, and my best wishes. ImpuMozhi 22:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC) - now he alleges cluelessness, unworthiness and impugns the quality of the work becoz I relied on one book for most of the information, and sarcastically implies that not me nor any editor had any good basis of knowledge or resources to write this article.

You raise some concerns that technically point to an intrinsic error in the way this data is presented, but this is in no way a "major" error at all. I can't help feel that if you had meant to be constructive and helpful, you would have pointed this out on the talk page in a more modest, straightforward way, instead of trying to make a court-case out of this by denouncing this article and insulting its editors.

[edit] Self-contradictions

I understand every man is entitled to change his mind, improve and learn with time. Perhaps ImpuMozhi did not see these small errors he now calls "major" earlier. But the glaring contradictions in ImpuMozhi's appraisal of this article dent his credibility. As now he asserts his so-called critique after studying the article, there is quite some evidence that he had read the article carefully before as well, and he made the following comments:

From talk:Political integration of India, section "Small inaccuracies": There are many small inaccuracies in the article, which stand out only since the page is otherwise so well-written. for instance, the very first sentence -- 'first time in over 1000 years': not so; it is in fact for the first time ever, and some people may wish to detect POV (a possibility agitated also by the use of the word 'secure') in what is probably only error-by-oversight. Again, the present extent of India was never equalled by the Maurya Empire; that empire never got beyond north-coastal-Andhra or approached Assam. If you want to talk of sheer size, as in including Pakistan/Afghanistan, then the Mughal Empire was probably as large as present-day India and certainly larger than the Mauryan one.

A good portion of the first paragraph offers itself for remodelling; for instance, after the accession of Sikkim, nothing on the subject has been influenced by considerations involving China, and the third sentence suggests that this is an ongoing consideration. I would generally urge understatement and parsimony in such issues.

I could go on mentioning small things, but....I would be glad to copy-edit/rewrite the page (adding some details vis-a-vis princely states) but am afraid of jumping into POV issues in what is clearly someone's beloved baby. Once again, the article as it stands is of exceptional quality; far, far above average, and hopefully eliminating the present glitches will raise it to the "Main Page" level. Regards, ImpuMozhi 22:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

All of ImpuMozhi's criticisms were addressed by me and others at the time. Rama's Arrow

[edit] Response to "Major problems"

1. There is no lack of focus - the article is divided into (a) Accession and unification of states, (2) Reorganization of states from 1947 onwards.
2. There is no lack of depth - the article explicitly discusses the intrigue and politics of the three-state crises, the hidden motives and convictions of Jinnah, Patel and Nehru, the extensive diplomacy, and of the secretive exchanges between the Nawab of Bhopal and Mountbatten. There are major QUOTES in various important sections.

Menon’s book is Menon’s book, not an entry into an encyclopedia. It is meaningless to suggest that the coverage here should be as explicit as Menon’s personal work – it is a summary style work which for depth, includes direct quotes from Menon and Patel.

1. There is no Lack of composition skills - there can be no greater a faulty subjective observation - all the content of this page is properly and logically organized. No average reader has a problem understanding what happened in India's political integration. Certainly no person who participated in the peer review (ImpuMozhi included) had a problem understanding what happened. The FA vote did not reveal such an intrinsic observation, which normally would be problematic and so basic that it would have to be addressed before it got to the FA vote.

[edit] Response to "Major factual errors (and lacunae)"

As it is often emphasized, a summary is the ideal way to present your subject matter. Your objections on a purely factual basis are valid as far as Privy Purse is concerned, but on the whole they do not stand becoz you refuse to understand what the basis of the deal was - without this guarantee, many monarchs would not have signed the treaty. The sub-section "Instrument of Accession" represents not only the instrument, but the entire framework of the deal that was crafted. To accommodate the technical points you raise, it will serve to change the title of that sub-section to avoid confusion.

Rulers position: I'm sorry, but you do not understand the context of the deal - the rulers wanted guarantees that they would not lose their property, titles and freedom as a result of accession. They did not want their kingdoms to be dissolved, for this would have meant loss of their own position.

After accession, princely states became (1) part of the Dominion, ceding foreign affairs, communications and economic policy (2) to send delegates to the Constituent Assembly. (3) The rulers were recognized as heads of state and they were encouraged to develop democracy via Prajamandals. They were not "sovereign."

And by the way, why would kings object so vehemently to the "MERGERS" if it hadn't been assured that India would officially recognize their states? The Government would have no need to hesitate before merging, but there is cited evidence that explains this.

They wanted these guarantees as is discussed in "Patel's diplomacy", without which many prolly would not have signed the treaty.

Standstill agreements are explained/noted wherever relevant - Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir. In the Hyderabad section, it is also noted that some other states also availed of it before actually acceding.

[edit] Splitting claims and the "Integration in media" section

Your claim that everyone was in favor of splitting the article is ridiculous. You seem to insinuate that I bypassed the will of everybody by imposing the "states reorganization" sections on it. There was a proper discussion which one can still read at the peer review. I offered an extensive rationale that there is no basis to split the article:

1. The article is well below the 50kb limit which FA guidelines suggest calls for splitting.
2. All the sections in question are written in summary style, and are not disconnected from the discussion of the political integration of India.
3. The Political integration of India involves the creation and evolution of a political system that embodies the nationhood of India. To inform readers of India's political integration, one has to discuss the evolution of a federal republic in India, of how the Constitution and legislation integrated ethnic groups, religious groups and populations across India's geography and economy into a stable federal union that embodied and integrated its aspects of nationhood.
4. The entry of 565 states into India is not separate from the bid of a few in modern times to leave India - there is one stream dealing with political integration. And the formation of states that are stable and representative in order to keep all of India's constituent regions and peoples in the union is a vital, crucial part of political integration.
5. The latter sections do not pose any burden on the article or reader - in fact, they help clarify by appropriately following up on important questions regarding India's integration.

I replied extensively to you on the peer review, answering all the points you raised, but you now seem to imply that I ignored your views. This is fiction, total nonsense.

"Integration in media" is unique, admitted - it certainly does not represent any historical events - the reason I inserted it there is becoz the 3 noted films have played a big role in the people's mainstream dialogue on issues of integration. These works have encouraged freedom of expression on sensitive issues in India, changing the character of the process by encouraging millions of people to forthright about sensitive and harsh realities, grave errors and problems. If in a decent discussion, a consensus had told me there was something wrong with including this here, I would remove it - I still would.

[edit] Response to "further nitpicking"

1. Attlee Quote - is within the text of the linked article. You have to search a bit. If a better example is found, obviously the link would be changed.
2. Lead: the context is properly set - the article informs the reader of the uniqueness of this process in Indian history, and that it began in 1947 with princely states and provinces and continues to this day, involving religious, ethnic factors and issues. The definition of "political integration" was IMO, the sole problem - had to re-write many times and this final version was accepted as suitable by many others who re-wrote it.
3. India's near-neighbors are not the subject of this article. If you had paid attention, you would have realized why (a) Burma is mentioned in "British India" becoz up till 1938 it was a part of British India and why (b) Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal are mention in "The states" becoz they were not a part of British India.
4. Process of accession involves the diplomacy, not the signing of the treaties. It involves the period when the princes considered both options of joining India or Pakistan, or the rare chance they could obtain independence. It is even more chronological; becoz the first round of accessions came in May 1947, before the Instrument of Accession was announced.
5. Patel's guarantees were part of the deal and diplomacy becoz without that assurance, many princes would not have signed. It is also not objecting with the fact that the process had not officially begun, becoz the first round of accessions came in May 1947, and diplomacy was already on. Even the speculation with Jinnah was on by early June.
6. Lord Mountbatten was a credible figure becoz he would be India's head of state, as asked by Nehru and Patel, who headed India's government. Gandhi and Congress were not mentioned becoz they are not involved in this matter - Nehru and Patel made the decision - that is all that is relevant. We are not discussing why or how Mountbatten became governor general.
7. Hint of independence Clement Attlee made a speech where he rebutted Churchill's blocking of independence with an explicit endorsement of India’s right to freedom, and Mountbatten was proclaimed the "Last Viceroy of India."
8. Vallabhbhai Patel is not being "peacocked" - several people asked me to explicitly explain why he came to be called Iron Man of India as a result of this, and how important he single-handedly was to this process. It’s important to note the gravity of this.
9. Patel's Gujarat background being a qualification is pure nonsense. Patel's qualifications were that he was a tough leader of practical acumen and political skills, not because he was a Gujarati, hailing from an area of many princely states.
10. Hyderabad section is absolutely coherent - begins with Nizam's initial motivations, British response, Razvi's power, the India-Hyderabad exchanges, Mountbattent's HoA and Patel's final actions and rationale.

I will address the few points I consider to be valid, but I have no interest in continuing to highlight your own factual errors, misunderstandings and faulty approach to making criticism.

Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 20:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I second ImpuMozhi

I think that ImpuMozhi's basic point is pretty hard to dispute; this page is fairly good by the standards of the Wikipedia, but pretty trashy by the standards of Wikipedia's featured articles. I don't want to comment on what, specifically, could make it better -- I don't know the subject well enough. But I do read the featured article almost every day, and even the ones that don't interest me that much are very well written (except for this one). There seems to be some need of an overarching narrative to unify the entry. Or something. This is not to criticize the people who have worked hard to explain India's political integration, but rather the entry itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.155.227 (talk • contribs) February 20, 2006. (edit comment)

• Concert performances looks stubby. You could expand on that or include it in the rest of the article. Done. AppleJuggler 04:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Miscellanea could be added to other sections of the article. Done. AppleJuggler 04:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Partial discography is too long. They don't seem to like that in FAC. Done. AppleJuggler 04:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

These are just some comments. If you desire a review, please use the peer review process. Nat91 03:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• The article looks profeesional at the introduction but is not in a physical or mental attractive way for the audience to carry on reading. Dealt with. AppleJuggler 04:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• The discography looks shabby and needs sharpening up. Done. AppleJuggler 04:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• It was a close call between Start and B, but I decided to be harsh on your request. No worries. AppleJuggler 04:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

These are just some comments. If you desire a review, please use the peer review process. Thamizhan 10:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• A as it is almost FA worthy, meeting most of the criteria. A few modifications could help before submitting to FAC
• Importance = Low : Not central to WP India's coverage of core India topics. It overs a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

--Meno25 02:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

I also feel that more content should be added to this article. It is true that he was intially promoted to be the President of India, many might not be aware but it is true that Nehru was keen to have him as President.

Madan Mohan. M (edit comment)

1. Too many sections
2. More content and references needed
3. Less listy

=Nichalp «Talk»= 07:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

One more thing, Sanatan means original. In fact from Hinduism several sects are originated like sikhism, buddhism, jainism etc but the hinduism remains same, unmanipulated or unchanged, and this is really sanatan. Thus sanatan should be understood more as traditional.

Dr. Prashant Shukla (edit comment)

Bert Smilde, Holland (edit comment)

There are a lot of gaps in the article. For example, the article doesn't say much regarding India's policies during the cold war era and its role in NAM. Too much info is given on relationship w/ Tajikistan but not much is available for relationship w/ erstwhile Soviet Union. Also, where are the sources? --Incman|वार्ता 06:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• High as this is a famous park and a UNESCO site
• B class as a lot of work needs to be done for its improvement. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

Revision assessed

Even though the article has lot of text, it still qualifies as a start class article. This is because the article is unstructured, has a lot of unsourced statements, biased coverage to certain topics, lack of reference, and general problems with flow. A good clean-up may well get the article to a B-class. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Avinash B Tohare - Mumbai India (edit comment)

(Dawn Brown 02:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)) (edit comment)

A few more images appropriate to the subject would also be desirable, but are not essential.

For the most part, appropriate headings are given, and it's broad in its coverage, however, it is desirable that information under the following headings is given - "Demographics" and (especially) "Culture". "Geography" should be further elaborated. I would advise against a separate section on "Personalities" - perhaps intertwine these personalities into other sections (but this is an optional). "Tourist attractions" should be ordered a little more logically, by type. (Eg; temples and wildlife parks would belong under separate sub-headings or paragraphs)

The biggest issue with this article at the moment is its verifiability - there is a severe lack of Reliable sources.

This article has a fair way to go, however, it clearly has a lot of potential. Keep it up! Ncmvocalist 12:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• Needs infobox Needs Infobox Formatting
• Needs more info about early life. This is a biography. A person's life doesn't start from academic career alone.
• Description of the works are good. Decent referencing. Good work, yet a long way to go to FA. Cheers. -- Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} • 22:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Chez, for your comments. Though I am an adherent of Heidegger when it comes to writing biographies of philosophers (i.e., "He was born. He thought. He died. All the rest is pure anecdote."), but in this case I will try to fulfil the requirements, as you put, within a few days. Kumarilabhatta 04:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Re-assessed article as B-class. Cheers -- Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} • 07:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

This article has been rated B-Class on quality scale, though it is not far from A-class. The main issues holding back this article are disproportionate weightage to various sections and language flow. As an additional comment, the references need to be standardize according to one of the available standards. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

I have reservations about this being a B-class article. It has a lot of detail but also a lot of POV-pushing and it paints a picture that seems to me to be just plain inaccurate in the real world. And while there are many references they're almost entirely of works admiring SSB, mentioning little or none of the large amount of critical material available. The following seems like a very good bibliography of SSB-related material: bdsteel.tripod.com/More/sbresearchbib1.htm
Maybe some of the works mentioned in it can be used to improve the article.

67.117.130.181 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Amazing, now 67.117.130.181 is arguing for the inclusion of original research by Steel, a source that deemed to be non-reputable in mediation with BostonMA. 67.117.130.181, SSB is a very popular personality. The controversial material about him is many years old and there simply isn't any new controversial material to update the article with. Also, please refrain from posting these critical links on pages associated with Sathya Sai Baba. There is an ArbCom ruling that has prohibited this. Please read it for yourself: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba SSS108 ^talk-email 00:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to incorporate the bibliography into the article. I'm saying it has citations for various other publications that look like they should be usable in the article and are likely to be worth tracking down. I don't see it as a critical link. It is a bibliography and has citations to all kinds of material both pro and anti. Also, it is well sourced: every entry in it has a citation, which is the point of a bibliography. I will ask Thatcher131 for clarification about the arb ruling since I think you may have both misinterpreted it (at least I hope you have). 67.117.130.181 13:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• requested here. 67.117.130.181 06:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

Thank you very much! :) As this article is a "current event" right now, I'll wait till the dust settles and do some cleanup before submitting it for GA. But thanks again. :) Ekantik ^talk 04:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

The article just qualifies as a B-class article. Although the content in the article can do with a lot more, since it covers most the major requirements of a casual reader with extensive references, it qualifies as a B-class article. The article has been rated as Mid-importance owing to its presence in Indian educational system, media, and controversies associated. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

cheers pankaj arora melbourne(australia) (edit comment)

1. Lack of references, except for a handful of them. More are needed.
2. The Career section haphazardly lists all his roles (Director, Actor, Designer, Talk Show Host, Judge etc). The section should be broken into subsections, with each talking about a particular. I do not think breaking on basis of timeline would be a good idea for this article.
3. A Trivia section sounds fan site-ish. The info in that section should be somehow merged into the content of the article.
4. More detailed prose should be provided about his work. It should also focus a bit more on the market reception, critical recepion and nox-office reception of his films. A separate section for Critic's Response (or Critical Response) may be added.
5. If possible, a Personal Life section be created (fully attributed, no rumors).
6. A source for Khan (the movie, should be provided).
7. Phrases like big hit should be backed by a ref and if possible a sales figure.

Wish the article all the best. --soum^সৌমোyasch 09:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

• The lead come use some improvement. Remember it has to stand on its own and summarize the whole article.
• Trivia sections are not recommended anymore. Try to include it in the rest of the article.
• Is the Noted Roles section really necessary? Maybe you can talk about the roles in Film Career.

Again, these are just some comments. If you want a review, please use the peer review process. Nat91 20:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment comments

It has loads of information and the list is comprehensive. However, early life section needs to be expanded, and the film career has to be polished so that it doesn't look like a summary of the list. The noted roles section is contentious and may not be approved by the community in current form as it may be considered POV. Try bringing in the gross sales figures or relevant award nominations for those movies to prove that those roles are noted. Cheers -- Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} • 22:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] R. Madhavan

1. The article has all the key features and opefully it will become Indian cinema's second featured article. Prince Godfather 20:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

• Needs a infobox.
• Needs more pictures.
• Some information could go into a tables.
• Too techy...need to reduce the numbers in many sections.
• Can add a graphic timeline.
• Needs a copyedit.

Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• References needed
• History should be expanded
• Admission procedures
• Uniforms
• lesser sections, lists more prose needed
• school emblem
• faculty names and contact info should be removed

=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

203.129.205.253 08:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Amlan Dutta (edit comment)