Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kolkata

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Kolkata

Article on a metropolis of eastern India. Major works have been done on the article from February 2006. The article has passed through a peer review and further reviews by wikipedians, and edits have been done accordingly. The article has been selected as a good article. I request your support for making this article an FA. Thanks. --Dwaipayanc 17:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support - it is indeed a comprehensive article , that is not just well written but also gives a good insight into the fabric of Kolkata.--Jordy 17:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support it needs a light copyedit. Rama's Arrow 17:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support; I don't see any major reasons why not. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 18:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment You might want to put in the Indic Text template. --Osbus 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This has now been done. Rama's Arrow 18:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: is there any reason why the Indic Text template is in the middle of the History section? Shouldn't it be either at the top or the bottom of the page? AreJay 18:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll transfer it to the bottom - when placed at the top, it was creating formatting issues. Rama's Arrow 18:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It was already there at the bottom! I placed the template one or two days back! --Dwaipayanc 18:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious....I missed it completely. Rama's Arrow 18:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that too...I thought it was just my browser acting up! This is a good article. I am happy to support it, congradulations to the authors.AreJay 18:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Only one issue. Since there is a separate article on History of Kolkata, why does it need to have such large a redundancy in the History section in the Kolkata article? Also the lead-in section is way too streched out. --soUmyaSch 19:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I have shortened and copyedited the History section. Rama's Arrow 19:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me. - Ganeshk (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support A few more books rather than websites as references would be good, otherwise fine. History of Kolkata needs a lot more work. Sikandarji 20:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Sikandarji for pointig out that the daughter article History of Kolkata needs a lot more attention. We shall soon work on that article.--Dwaipayanc 04:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Excellent work, congratulations. Joelito 00:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - the editors have transformed this article and it meets all the criteria for featured article. Green Giant 01:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support + Question First of all, this article has my full support. But I've always wondered why articles related to India are among the highest quality on this site? Is it an interest of Brits who have a strong attachment to the country and thus put so much effort into it, or is it an equal contribution from all English speaking regions on a subject that fascinates many many dedicated people? Thanks. Sean WI 03:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No sir - it is the effort of Indian editors that is by and large responsible for the work. In 2006, there has been systematic and determined activity amongst Indian Wikipedians to elevate many articles on Indian subjects to FA status. Plus folks like user:Nichalp had already done fabulous work since 2004. Rama's Arrow 03:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the comment of Rama's SrrowArrow should slightly be modified. Not only Indian, as a whole South Asian wikipedians are doing good work lately.--Dwaipayanc 04:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'll let the secret out: Firstly, we have two reviews: an internal review by Indian editors and the normal peer review. We use peer review to obtain comments from the community, especially those not familiar with India-related topics. The internal review gets a lot of constructive comments, and since many Indian reviewers do have FAs to their credit, the article is shaped well after their comments have been sorted out. Thus, listing it here becomes a mere formality (one of our articles was featured in just 5 days). Secondly, we do have model India-related featured articles to quite a few categories. Hence, all we have to do is to use that as a template and match it section to section, and better it if possible. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Is there a need of the name of the city to be in the introduction section? It may be put in the History section. --soUmyaSch 05:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  There's no harm in having the name listed in the lead. Having it merged with the history will be difficult. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support - a really good article. By the way, I don't know too much about the other nations on Wikipedia, but I know for sure that Indian Wikipedians are organized and know what they want (in terms of aims and goals). We've also got some really good Indian admins that are consistently improving articles. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, I don't know how many things I've had to "borrow" from WP:INCOTW to help improve WP:USCOTW ;). (Oh and by the way, support!) AndyZ _t 19:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support : Nice work by the editors. --Ragib 08:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Well-referenced article, good work with the contents. --Andy123(talk) 08:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- having closely worked on it for many days. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- I have worked extensively on this article and feel that it is of the same caliber as other FA city articles. --Blacksun 17:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- Provides a very rounded and well-balanced description of the city. Saravask 17:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- Excellent work! SwiftRakesh 18:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support: A beautiful page in every respect. Informative, comprehensive and skilfully written. Two of the images are of tremendous quality and interest Image:Flowermarket.jpg and Image:Kolkataslum.jpg give an almost tangible understanding of the city to the page. Another (obscure) link in the page has conveniently filled a gap in a page I am writing myself, I actually found this page through google while researching my own new page - which proves This is wikipedia s it should be. Giano | talk 18:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support: Nicely written. A few random fact and reference checks worked out fine. Beautiful pictures. Balanced in all respects.--ppm 23:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support, brilliant. Well written, great images, a solid FA -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 23:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Once again another great South Asian article. joturner 23:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Tentative Oppose Sorry to be going against the grain here. In all, the content of the article is excellent, and it would have my strong support, aside from a few minor objections. Firstly, it requires a light copyedit to remove the instances of passive voice which are throughout the article. Sentences such as "During World War II, the city's port was bombed twice by the Japanese" need to be reconstructed. Quite easy to do. Secondly, the references are badly cited. For instance, the reference "Spiegel online article URL accessed on 23 April, 2006." Is a nice reference, but who wrote it and when? The same argument applies to "Air quality monitor on 16-17 March, 2006 URL accessed on 20 April, 2006 " and others throughout the article. In the case of "R. Gandhi, Patel: A Life, pp. 497 " What is the ISBN of the book? Is it a book? When was it published? Who by? Thirdly, there are not enough references. Finally, the format of the references throughout the article is not consistent. Do we have a space between the reference and the period/comma, or is there no space? This is not consistent. These are minor objections and should be quite easy to fix. Support Well done. --Bob 18:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've begun to address your points, but I believe that in British English, which is the main source of Indian English, it is passive voice which is emphasized, unlike with American English where the active is stressed as a better way. Rama's Arrow 18:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the inconsistencies in citations. We have fixed them. Some sources lacked the name of the writer. Some sources lacked a definite date of writting. Otherwise, all references have been updated and formatted. Please let us know if we inadvertantly missed something.

Regarding the use of passive voices, I think using it is grammatically correct. May be it is less beautiful than active voice. Could you please specify where should we change voices? (I have very less idea of British and American English differences, as Rama's Arrow pointed out. So specific portions you want to see changes, along with proper rationale, would be very welcome and also a learning experience for a person with weak English grammar like me.)

Regarding the number of references, WP:WIAFA does not specify any number. Still, 5 to 6 book references are not really inadequate in number, I guess. Even then, if you would like to see citations/ references on specific comments in the article, please let us know. Specific citations from the reference books have been denoted with inline citations. Other than those specific citations, the books listed as reference have been used as a guide to create the article.

Thanks a lot for your extremely alert review of the article. We have tries to fix the inconsistencies. Please comment. Bye.--Dwaipayanc 05:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have changed my vote to support after some work was done rectifying some instances of passive voice and references and notes were correctly cited using publisher/author names of the works. --Bob 22:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support BengalRenaissanceEccentrica 04:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I don't see any need to change passive voice to active, I find properly used passive voice beautify the prose through their slightly roundabout and flowing way of saying things. Loom91 05:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Good article.--Raj d0509 10:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Many improvements since my last visit.--Victor.P.Das 16:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Kolkata was in a very bad shape 6 months back. But now seems to be perfect with the nitty-gritties worked out. --Aryasanyal
• Strong Supportfor this well documented contribution.--BobClive 08:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - present state of article is comprehensive and excellent. Pradiptaray 14:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)