Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gangtok/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Gangtok

A self nomination, since I am the sole author of the page. After visiting the town of Gangtok recently, I was charmed by this quaint town and decided to write all about it. Lots of images (my own) and meaty content, plus a plethora of links. It’s a comprehensive article and I've tried to touch on all points. I also ran it through Peer Review without any negative comments. Adhered to almost all Wikipedia MoS. Nichalp 19:05, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Exemplary city page. [jon] [talk] 20:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Im not objecting - but im a little concerned about having a FA with only one contributor, I feel that all FA's require several contributors to ensure a higher level of accuracy and absolutely no POV. I know that this is not a real grounds for objecting - this is undoubtably a well written article - but im not lending my support unless there is significant editing by others. CGorman 21:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • My Btreive article got to featured article status and I was the main contributor (with a few people chipping in to fixup grammar, etc). Same with Common Unix Printing System. I don't think it's a problem! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I did keep the article open for almost a fortnight and publicised it in many places including PR, but unfortunately no one edited the page. Nichalp
    • Fair enough you tried to get others to edit - but the fact remains it is your sole work. As a result, as others have pointed out the article - while informative and interesting - is tilted in POV. CGorman 21:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • If you could give me give instances of a POV, I'll try and soothe things up. Would the sections till Culture be an NPOV? Nichalp 20:22, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. While I do not dislike most of the content or even the subject, I feel that it is poorly written, more in the style of a travel guide instead of a factual encyclopaedia article. Furthermore, the article uses bizarre and arcane language, for example using "appellation" instead of name. IF the language can be cleaned up and the travel-guide like references can be rewritten, I would be happy to support. Páll 03:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

**Exactly what is so bizzare with the language? Appellation is also used in the India article which is a FA. I believe that simple wikipedia was created to address this issue so that the level of English can be of a higher quality on the English wikipedia. My take on this issue is if a word cannot be understood, consult a lexicon (or simple wiki) Nichalp 19:47, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Made major changes. Nichalp

• Oppose - agree it sounds like a travel brochure. And it is wordy - in the first paragraph alone we have 'salubrious', 'cynosure' and 'sybaritic'. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 03:22, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see the above point. Nichalp
    • There is a difference between using uncommon words because you must and using them because you can. Example:

A research team proceeded toward the apex of a natural geological protuberance, the purpose of their expedition being the procurement of a sample of fluid hydride of oxygen in a large vessel, the exact size of which was unspecified. One member of the team precipitently descended, sustaining severe fractional damage to the upper cranial portion of the anatomical structure. Subsequently the second member of the team performed a self rotation translation oriented in the direction taken by the first team member.

Translation: Jack and Jill went up a hill to fetch a pail of water. Jack fell down and broke his crown, and Jill came tumbling after.

So what is the added value of appellation over name? Of cynosure over focal point? --Calton 02:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • • I've tempered most of the sections till culture. Nichalp 20:22, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Very excellently written and makes great use of illustrations. However, it is overly POV. Makes huge claims, especially in the introduction, that can't and aren't proven in the article. Masterhomer 04:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Would you be kind enough to guide me to areas which you find to be a POV?
    • Speaking for myself, ... its underlying zeitgeist in the first graf is pretty POV. --Calton 02:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Changed the first two paras. I hope that upto the Culture section it is sanitised. If you have any more POV please list it. Nichalp 20:22, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Commment/abstain. Fairly good, but not yet up to FA standard, as others noted. What comes to mind - it would fit very well to Wikitravel, where it would be much welcome. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Minor Opposition This article is clearly off on a good foot, but it needs more time and more contributors before it is ready to be a featured article. Phrases like "arriving here to discover Sikkim's exotic culture" really don't belong in an entry like this. We are not publishing a travel guide. At the moment it contains too much flowery language and too much pretentiousness ("Though Gangtok is a modern city, with its internet cafés, satellite channels, discothèques and bars, it preserves its underlying zeitgeist, blending the eclectic flavours of its rich cultural history with the contemporary."? Give me a break). The article needs some citations to other sources, particularly with regard to demographic information (e.g.: 18% Buddhist? According to whom?). Comment: A better map of the city (the current one looks like an attempt at solving the travelling salesman puzzle), or a bird's eye view, would be extremely helpful in getting a sense of the geographical layout of the city. Also, more emphasis on historical context and cultural considerations would make the article seem more balanced. Currently it still seems like the article is written to be helpful to a potential tourist, rather than someone doing research on, say, the municipalities of Sikkim.</Jun-Dai 21:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)>

  Pretty soon, I expect I'll be able to remove my opposition to the piece, but being unable to easily verify any of the information contained within the article, I can't give it my support, especially becaase there aren't enough significant content contributors to convince me that the wiki process has really taken place with regards to ensuring the article's veracity. Perhaps this weekend or so, I will be able to take a trip to the main library and do a little research to satisfy myself, since the main author of the article clearly wants it to be worth something, but without that, and in the absence of time (it's a very young article) and more input (particularly some from people who live in Sikkim would be nice), I don't feel comfortable giving it my vote.</Jun-Dai>

There aren't any clear online maps of the city available, so I traced it out from a Government website which had scanned a map. The map however was of a poor quality. I have listed a few websites, maybe that should start you off. As far as the population is concerned, it is in one of the reference books I have listed. Nichalp 18:39, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 17:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)> In that case, citing it should be easy. As for the map, that was just a comment, and not part of my opposition to the article. At any rate, I'm very impressed with the work that you've done, and I think that if enough time simply goes by, the article will get that little bit of maturity it needs to be supportable as a featured article. Even if it were resubmitted now, I think it would meet with much less opposition than it did this time around. </Jun-Dai>

• Oppose. Good start, but it looks like something I'd read in a Sunday newspaper travel section. Less tourism talk, more information talk. --Calton 02:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, looks like everone has a problem with the opening paragraphs. I've removed the offending phrases, please have a look. I have tried and sanitised upto the Culture section. I hope it is now all encyclopedic fact. I would be obliged if you could provide me specific instances of what needs to be corrected till this point. Nichalp 20:22, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
    

    

    I cannot tell where Gangtok is very clearly on this picture

I've made major changes to the structure, removed the poetry and "Brochure" sections and modelled a few heading content on Newark and Sarajevo. Please have a look. Nichalp 09:15, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment with picture. --ZayZayEM 08:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gangtok; being the state capital is the red dot. Nichalp 18:39, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say I couldn't find it. I said it wasn't very clear. A red dot and slightly more bold text really doesn't stand out in this picture with too many other distractions. This picture looks more like it draws attention to "Sikkim"--ZayZayEM 09:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 18:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)> That's a pretty good point. Being an article on Gangtok, there's no reason Gangtok shouldn't be larger and bolder and more clearly indicated on the map than the other locations. </Jun-Dai>