Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Goa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Goa

A self nomination. Goa is one of India's most well known states. It was on peer review last week. Taxman and Jguk helped critique and copyedit the article; and Mozzerati verified my references. I hope I have fulfilled all the criteria for the FA status.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 19:04, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now, not even a single reference to "Goa" psychedelic trance music, which is what Goa is predominantly known for by most of North America. Infobox wraps wrong, none of the sections are what i'd consider comprehensive, sport and media are both sparse paragraphs. It needs to go back to peer review IMO. I now Support  ALKIVAR™ 20:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Goa trance music is mentioned in the second paragraph of the culture section. About the infobox: I can't replicate the problem on my PC, so I don't know how to take care of it since I can't see what you are seeing. You'd have to mention what you hope to see in the sports and media sections so that I can append the said information.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 20:41, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Fixed the infobox myself, I guess I missed the mention in culture. As for Sports and Media, if you can make it a section you can write more than 6 sentances in Media and 11 in Sports. I still say its not long enough there.  ALKIVAR™ 22:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, just because you'd like to see more there doesn't mean that's the best for the article. An overview article like this can't include full information on every single topic, it instead must summarize many. Specifically I think the sport should be summarized and fit within culture, because it is really just a lifestyle activity. Media could be fit in somewhere else too. -Taxman 14:10, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Alkivar, the sections do look small, but I have no ideas as to what more to to add in the two sections. I would like to expand the sections, perhaps you could give me ideas as to what I can add there? Taxman: I wouldn't want to merge culture with sports as it would make the culture section too long. While the media section can be merged, none of the current sections seem suitable for a merger.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 18:45, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I've merged sections to address your nomination.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 19:48, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I think it's a splendid, well-rounded article – it's even got information about climate, and a really lovely map – and the many colourful images make it a pleasure to look at. (And believe it or not, the article is not about North America.) Image:Blkred flag.png QuartierLatin¹⁹⁶⁸ 14 Germinal CCXIII

• Support. -Taxman 14:10, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. -Vsmith 02:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object. How different are sports, education, transport and transport in Goa from other cities in India or around the world? Unless it is unique, the justification for adding them is weak. For example, the trams in Melbourne are unique because they are the only city in Australia to have them. Why would I be interested in a what kind of buses run in Goa (unless of course, if they are unique). --Travisyoung 06:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On what basis is the justification for adding the sports and transport weak? Wikipedia:What is a featured article mentions no such criteria for mentioning "unique" topics. Thus, this cannot be construed as a valid objection. The article should be comprehensive, adding the said topics certainly lends support to the goal of having a comprehensive allround topic. You may not want to know about buses, but can you say the same for for others who may want to know something on transport?  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 18:31, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I agree the article should be comprehensive. However you failed to mentioned the second half of the sentence in Wikipedia:What is a featured article - "does not omit any major facts or details". Are are the sports and transport sections a major part of Goa? Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not clearly states that "current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not travel guides." For someone who is interested in transport/information on how to get around in Goa, then a link to the relevant article at Wikitravel would be more appropriate. Unless hypothetically, Goa has hydrogen buses or ships which run on solar cells (something which is unique or different. Then the interested reader might want to refer to an article on environmentally-friendly transport. --Travisyoung 05:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You've missed the point completely. The transport section lists the various modes of transport in Goa. It certainally is not a travel guide, and includes information on the national highways and length of major roads. And yes, sports is an important section. Just because the transport section lists the main highways and rail lines, list necessarily mean it is a travel guide. I'm tired of this petty quibbling which is just your Point of View. Please object on something constructive instead of frivolous points that cannot be addressed.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 18:44, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph on the beach volleyball and reworded the transport section. However no guidelines say it has to be "unique", so I'm not removing the text.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 19:48, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Support, but agree with Alkivar that this should give more than a one-liner mention of the electronic music genre that many people tend to associate with the name. —RaD Man (talk) 08:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support. The planet earth has several wonderful places and regions – Goa is one of them. Few interesting notes about Goa:

Rocks older than the oldest fossils are found in Goa. Geologically classified as Trondjemitic Gneiss, these rocks are 3600 million years old, and are found along the higway linking Panaji to Belgaum. These rocks belonged to the Supercontinet Panggea which broke apart during the process of continental drift.

Goa has also many interesting but lesser known geological features. Then,there are more than 40 estuarine, 8 marine and about 90 riverine islands - even the revenue department has no record of the smaller islands. A number of these islands are very scenic and beautiful; virgin and uninhabited, and some are recently forming like the one in front of Penha da Franca church in Mandovi estuary, close to Chorao-Ribandar ferry-route.

The Portuguese had recorded and classified more than 100 medicinal springs in Goa. Goa has more than 300 ancient tanks, many of which are more than 1000 years old. For a small state like Goa, it works out to be, 1 tank for every block of land measuring 3 kms x 4 kms.

Apart form special geological and geographical features, Goa is unique in cultural history, ecology, anthropology. Goa has a long historical heritage, from the vedic period till the modern time, when Portuguese influence gave a new dimension to the Goan Identity.

Goa is a living testimony of delicate synthesis of various cultures. We, the Wikipedians should come closer to highlight the natural and social masterpiece of our human heritage to a wider audience by according Goa the featured article candidate.

PS: and, with an open heart and without any “motive” and “malice”, I would like to interject on earlier discussion. Yes, trams in Melbourne are unique, because that is the only city to have them. “Motorcycle taxi”, the system of carrying pillion rider (against payment) is something unique not only in Goa, but in India, and may be in the World. I entreat that any information about public transport, in a proper and relevant context, does not tantamount to be qualified as a travel guide. --220.226.36.7 09:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)Hey as usual, I had forgotten to sign --Bhadani 09:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then why are these not in the Goa article? I appreciate your comments, which are definitely provide much more insight than comments by Nichalp, which appear to me combative and self-defensive at times. I do understand that there are cultural/national sensitivities, but I firmly believe that a FA must demonstrate one of Wikipedia's best work. Once again, thank you Bhadani for your insight. --Travisyoung 05:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll include the matter now that I've got the reference link from Bhadani.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)=

Travis, there's no policy that all sections should be unique or exotic to be featured, but at the same time there is a lot of interesting matter about the state, particularly in the history and culture of sections. 2) The pillion bikes were already included. Please mention the room for improvement instead of why "buses should be mentioned" and "solar vehicles". Simply put, in many Indian places buses are run by the govt only, and this matter would be useful if someone has to make a comparison on transport in different parts of India. But I reiterate once again, I wouldn't remove the whole section as has useful information for many, but I've edited the text so that it is no longer the travel guide as you put in.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 19:23, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A very well written and arguably the most colourful article. I've some doubts about the correctness of punctuation (usage of ;) in the last paragraph of the History section, though. --Sundar (talk • contribs) 09:31, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I agree with the comments about the tourist guide feel. If you look at any place in the world, there will be certain things there no matter what. Is it important to say that people in Goa pay attention to the EuroCup? What is different about that from other places? Or that some people in some parts of Goa play beach volleyball? Stick with what makes Goa different. Páll 00:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Probably, it wasn't obvious. But, I think it is there because the rest of India is more obsessed with the unofficial national game of Cricket. --Sundar (talk • contribs) 04:32, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I've reworded the transport section so make it a "less" of a travel guide. The sports I've pruned and added it to culture. Since there are no guidelines that topics should be unique to wikipedia I wont remove the sentences. Instead I've rewritten the some sport sentences so that they have some more information.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 19:48, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Comments. Much work has been done to address the concerns listed here. However, not all of the concerns listed here are fully address and IMHO I feel that this article needs to spend more time in peer review. Referring to Wikipedia:What is a featured article, below are some of the areas that need to be looked into:

• Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet. (point 3 of Wikipedia:What is a featured article) - My earlier objection was misconstrued by Nichalp. I did not mentioned that "topics should be unique to wikipedia" or "all sections should be unique or exotic to be featured" (please see above comments by Nichalp). To quote point 3 so that I will not be misunderstood again - "Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet". The insightful comments by Bhadani do indeed potray a very interesting and unique perspective which I feel would make this article a comprehensive and unique article on the internet. I appreciate efforts to add his comments in the article. This is what Wikipedia is about after all, a collaboration of ideas, not a one man show. That said, if this article spends some time at peer review, all these very unique perspectives could be added and enhance the Goa article.

• Comply with the standards set by any relevant WikiProjects, as well as those in the style manual. (point 8 of Wikipedia:What is a featured article) - IMHO I feel that Alkivar's concerns were not fully addressed (As for Sports and Media, if you can make it a section you can write more than 6 sentances in Media and 11 in Sports. I still say its not long enough there.) Perhaps an ideal solution would be to comply with the standards set with the consensus of the community at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities#Structure. After all, Wikipedia:What is a featured article does say that a featured article should comply with the relevant standards. Divisions could go under Government & Politics, Flora & Fauna could go under Geography and Climate etc. If the sections article become too long, then these could be referred to main articles for each section. I am confident that Nichalp can put his excellent summary skills to good use here.

That said, I would like to applaud the excellent efforts of the various contributors to this articles. Some time spent in peer review and this article would be excellent for FA status the next time round.

--Travisyoung 02:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for replying again and letting me know some of your comments.

1. As per Wikipedia:What is a featured article, I have complied with points 1,2,4,5,6,7&8. Points 3 and 1d are subjective statements, and to ratify them, we use this page to vote. I have also complied with all Wikipedia:Manual of Styles, ranging from geographical cordinates, units, Main articles, footnotes, dashes, headings and references (and having it verified) [I've got used to this stuff now].
2. I have included Bhadani's comments into the text along with its references.
3. As of now there's no "ideal solution" to the sections. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities as you mention, mentions this clearly: "These are only suggestions, things to give you focus and to get you going, and you shouldn't feel obligated in the least to follow them.". Besides, the project is for US cities, and the same metric cannot apply for each and every country, (though it can follow many topics). Since there are no guidelines for states, I believe that I should be given the "creative licence" to include suitable and relavent headings? I have though, modelled many of my my headings on countries, but again, the same metric cannot be clamped down on a state. [If there was one I would have followed it.] Divisions are akin to a country's state and would not be suitable under government as they are two disparate topics. See Taxman's comments above on the inclusion of content under a heading.
4. "collaboration of ideas, not a one man show". This is what the page looked like before I worked on it. Its not a one man show as you have said, as sufficient matter was already present on the page. I did list it in Peer Review:- See: Wikipedia:Peer review/Goa. Besides the PR, I had also listed in Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics (now archived) so that Indian editors could have a look. Indian reviewers: Bhadani, Sundar and Brhaspati had a look at it, and if you look at the page history, significant edits have taken place after my version. Besides, I've even asked two Goan permanent residents to help out. (They are occasional contributors, but alas, they haven't responded.)
5. I listed the page for a week in Peer Review. I'm unlikely to get any help on PR if I list it again. (My next article is Kalimpong, currently in PR, with no suggestions yet.)
6. PS. I do not summarise unless the page size exceeds 30kb.
7. Since you have objected in two places, I've removed the word Object from above.

I've done all I can in my capacity to address Alkivar's, Pall's (he hasn't responded) and yours. You may choose to continue your objection, but some of your comments are subjective and I have no way of knowing as to how to address it.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 20:39, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Comments. If you look at the featured article about my home city of Seattle, you'll see that much information is included there about things that do not make Seattle unique. I do not mean to be rude, but I think that your comments, Travisyoung, reflect the view that featured articles about the third world must include "exotic" or "unique" information in order to fit FA standards. This reflects two mental pathologies: first, the notion that the third world just is exotic and strange and other, and second, the notion that no one could possibly be interesting in the third world unless it was exotic and strange and other. I apologize if these comments seem inflammatory. I do not mean to be trollish. I mean merely to point out something has bothered me greatly about this conversation. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 05:41, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Hydriotaphia. Please see my last comments - I did not mention or suggest that "all sections should be unique or exotic to be featured". To quote point 3 of Wikipedia:What is a featured article so that I will not be misunderstood again - "Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet". I am truly sorry if my comments have caused any confusion. In any case, I disagree with the usage of the words "first world" and "third world". I am not from a "first world" country myself, have been to Mumbai on a work-related trip and I tend to believe that your "exotic third world" misconception stems from the US-centric view of the world that a lot of people here in Asia believe the majority of Americans have. But, this is not the forum to discuss is it? :) --Travisyoung 09:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)