Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Delhi/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

[edit] Delhi

A GA, this article probably needs fine tuning in certain aspects so that it can be brought to FA status. The article is under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities. Please review the article and help improve it. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Shouldn't this be in peer review then? AZ t 17:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Good observation. It underwent peer review recently. Forgot to give the link. here it is : peer review.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose too many red links. --Foundby 19:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Working on this. Please check back in a few days. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Will do, if I forget leave a message on my talk page. --Foundby 19:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
In any case, red links are not an obstacle for FA status. There is no criterion impeding a FA having red links.--Yannismarou 17:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Could we have a better district map? I can make one if we agree. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course, Deeptrivia. Please make a better district map. Please comment on other aspects you think need improvement for getting FA status. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Map is done. A comment on the culture section. There is a distinct culture within the Walled City, which according to many as the authentic Delhi culture developed in Delhi over centuries (contrasted to the culture predominantly influenced by Punjabi immigrants who came in 1947.) Some more stuff should be added on this Delhi culture. An interesting reference is City of Djinns (I don't have it currently). deeptrivia (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Quick comments Do you mean that the page is currently undergoing serious work by that project? In that case, shouldn't the nomination wait for a stable version? As far as the article is concerned, let me make a couple of superficial comments. First, please cleanup the external links per WP:EL. Also, the article ends with a bunch of large topic tables. I think most of them are unnecessary. Pascal.Tesson 22:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply to quick comments Hi! The article underwent major works in May 2006. Moderate works were also done in December 2006 (especially copyediting, updating of statistical data per newly available studies, proper linking and summarizing). The article has been stable structurally for past 6 months. No editwars occur in the article. Minor additions/reversions/modifications are, of course, occuring, which is usual for such a city article. So, in gist, the article is not undergoing serious work by the project.
The comment above (on culture section) by Deeptrivia can be considered to question comprehensiveness of the article, which is fair in the FAC. An article in FAC might not seem comprehensive to a reviewer. And an actionable object or comment is welcome in this regard.
The External links seems to be ok now. Please comment. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not quite ready to support from the get go but the article is very nice. Writing is excellent (although I'm sure some of the keen-eyed copy-editors will find minor things that need fixing), organization is clean, lots of content (though I'm not competent to judge comprehensiveness). On my browser, the huge Dehli-related topics table overflows to the right for some reason. Also, the culture section is large enough that it might make sense to spin-off a separate article. I'll probably support the article in a few days. Pascal.Tesson 06:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply to comments: Thanks for your observations. I've tried to fix the overflowing of the "Delhi-related topics" template. Will be trying to do a daughter article (and adequate summarizing) of "Culture" section. Please check back later. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment- Please read my comment regarding the sentence about monuments in the peer review. It is very awkward currently. --Blacksun 10:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply: Hi! The sentence has been changed accordingly. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've done a little bit of copyediting but I suspect that some more competent work in that respect would do it some good. (See the crazy hard, yet oh so valuable advice User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a) Also, the last paragraph of the education section is redundant with the count given in the first one. Also, while I was truly happy to learn about lakh, I'm not sure it makes use to use such non-standard units, especially in articles of high value which will be read extensively by non-Indians. (Of course, one might also argue that this is precisely why it should be left there...) Pascal.Tesson 01:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply Names of universities shifted to where count was given. Million and billion equivalents given alongside lakhs and crores. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, nice work but in general wouldn't you agree that there is just too many wiki links? Often redundant. Arjun 03:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
For example, from the first line of the History section], does epic need to be wikilinked? As the Mahabharata is in fact an epic, this info can be learned on the Mahabharata article. I would personally suggest removal of that link. Arjun 03:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply: Have tried to decrease the overwikification. Please have a look. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you 110% better Great Job, I will take a more full look at this article later so I can correctly judge but from what I read I am leaning to Support. Arjun 15:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support After reading the article, I find it first off very informative, I see no MOS probs, and no redundancies. Do you think that the History section should be trimmed however? Arjun 00:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply The history section was slightly trimmed. Please have a look. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Perfect. Arjun 20:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose - Unreferenced claims - "Due to a high migration rate, Delhi registers as one of the fastest growing cities in Asia.", "The Persianized surname Dahelvi is also related to residents of Delhi", "Broadband internet penetration is increasing in the city, with MTNL and Tata being the leading service providers.". Please advise when refs are provided for these claims (or they are removed) and I will switch to support this otherwise sound article. The grammar is also shaky in parts, but I will fix that now. Proto::► 14:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Now support (good work). Proto::► 09:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply:Thanks for the comments. I'd be somewhat busy tomorrow. Will either provide reference for the citation needed tags, or remove those sentences in 2 days. Please check back again. And a huge thanks for the edits you made in the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thre fixed, one still on there ("Traditionally, the monsoons are supposed to touch Delhi by 29 June every year.". Proto::► 19:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Ooops! Missed that. Now citation provided. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment article has made nice progress. I would still recommend invoking the magic of the league of copyeditors. It would be helpful in putting the final touches. Pascal.Tesson 03:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Have submitted it to The League. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose- Everything looks fine and pretty at a glance but I get the strong feeling that the article is not well-researched in many areas. For instance, the culture section is severely lacking despite having many paragraphs of content. The problem is that most of that content is generic and can be applied to any Indian city. I expect more about Delhi's culture - after all it is the capital of India and one of her largest + oldest cities. Cookie cutter templates and content will not work for me. For a reference, compare it with Kolkata's culture section and you can readily see the difference in quality. This article has no soul for me. *shrugs* --Blacksun 11:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a ton Blacksun for your observation. Hmm...now we need some Delhiite I guess, to provide some soul in the article. Yes I can now understand. The article has data, but is not exactly representing the city properly. Right? Ok, I'm trying. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • OBJECT. Well-written, looks to be well-researched, but several sections are without referencing (Culture, Transportation etc.) and need more citations. Would like to see alleviated a few of those red links in Culture section, italicise the names of newspapers and periodicals (per WP:MOS-T). Decent lead, but still needs expansion. —ExplorerCDT 02:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. We'll try to address these concerns ASAP. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Object -- Blacksun does have a point. I wish I could help, but I'm not from Delhi and don't know much about it. You might be able to solve this by using the weekend to immerse yourself in one or two well-written books on Delhi and authored by a Delhi native (I'm thinking of something along the lines of Maximum City); you might then be able to integrate the facts in the "Culture" section, relate more unique things about Delhi, and make the section flow more smoothly. Convoluted and inscrutable wording such as "[t]he India Habitat Centre provides a physical environment which would serve as a catalyst for a synergetic relationship between individuals and institutions working in diverse habitat related areas" may also be contributing to this effect. Otherwise looks promising. Thanks. Saravask 05:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What is the scope of the article? The article does not have a clear focus and it seems to vacillate as an article written as a metropolis and union territory. The focus should be as an urban area. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The NCT of Delhi is the scope. This happens to be the metropolis as well as the special union territory. Isn't it so? NCT is divided in 3 municipalities. The agglomeration, on the other hand, is NCR which includes 4 satellite cities. NCR is not highlighted in the article, just mentioned. Please comment.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Object—1a. Not too badly written, but a FA on this topic would need some massaging. Here are random examples of why the whole article needs a copy-edit.
    • Prepositions need an audit, e.g., "around 2.5 times of the national average" and "a major post in the old trade routes"—"in"? No, "on".
    • Bloat: "it faces key issues like"—Try "it faces issues such as"
    • Repetition: " the seventh most populous metropolis in the world. Delhi's metropolitan area," plus a "metropolis" above. What about going plain, with "city"?
    • Redundancy: "Altogether, the NCR is the world's fifth most populous agglomeration"—The last word renders the first unnecessary.
    • "are considered to be the same entity"—Who's doing the considering? Just remove "considered to be". This occurs elsewhere, too.
    • Ungainly snake: "After the end of the Slave dynasty, a succession of Turkic and Central Asian dynasties, the Khilji dynasty, the Tughluq dynasty, the Sayyid dynasty and the Lodhi dynasty held power in the late medieval period and built a sequence of forts and townships that are part of the seven cities of Delhi." We think we're reading a list, but the lead–items boundary is unclear at first. Try ", power was held by a succession of ...". Split the sentence towards the end?
  • "the mid sixteenth century"—Try "the mid-16th century". Tony 11:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply the article is being copyedited by new editors. Some specific examples cited by you have already been addressed. More works going on. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for now

  1. Lopsided ToC. What is administration doing under Geography? And why does districts have to be a single L3 heading?
  2. Climate Table not needed on this page
  3. Etymology needs more citations
  4. Choppy sentences: Archeological relics dating back to the second millenium BCE have been found in and around Delhi so??? what does this imply?
  5. The part on Delhi-New Delhi gaining capital status in 1911/1947 in the history section is convoluted and should be simplified.
  6. Delhi is located at 28.38° N and 77.13° E -- use the template coor
  7. Due to Delhi's proximity to the Himalayas -- promimity to the Himalayas? How close is it? Doesn't seem very close, and if my geography serves me correct cold weather in Delhi is not from the Himalayas but rather the fag end of 'western disturbances" (from the Mediterranean) which deposit snowfall over kashmir.
  8. How does the Delhi HC order to remove illegal establishments in effect shape the overall history of Delhi?
  9. How would you define pleasant climate?
  10. per capita - do not italicise
  11. Culture definately needs improvement. See other city articles
  12. 'alarmingly' high?
  13. sports can be merged with culture
  14. Extreme temperatures have ranged from -- have ranged from or range from? Use the present tense and the records are still valid
  15. lead needs to be smoothened

=Nichalp «Talk»= 16:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Nichalp's oppose:
  1. Fixed. New section "Civic administration". ToC looks better now.(please see)
  2. Climate table moved to daughter article.
  3. etymology citations - to be done.
  4. Archeological relics sentence - changed, with implication.
  5. Capital status - simplified. (please see)
  6. Template coordinates used.
  7. Uncited sentence removed.(proximity).
  8. Delhi sealing drive is insignificant - removed.
  9. pleasant - removed.
  10. italics - removed.
  11. Culture - Huh! that's a mammoth task! Will be trying to take care shortly.
  12. alarming - removed
  13. Sports not merged with culture.
  14. Extreme temp "range" - done.
  15. Lead - to be done.(please help) Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll see if something about the lead can be on on Sat. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment In reply to Blacksun and Saravask's suggestion that the article, especially the section "Culture" lacks soul, I must say that is probably because the city IS lacking soul (objections from Delhi-fans are welcome, those might help to infuse some soul in the article). Yes, Old Delhi, the Walled City, had some distinct cultural traits. Just a bit of those typical things have now been mentioned in the "Culture" section. Unfortunately hardly any more remarkable legacies persist. In all related articles, every writer is rueing how good was the old city, in particular, and Delhi in older days, in general, and how lustreless is the city at present. Please see the articles here. The same tune is repeating.
The problem is all those things are past. As user Deeptrivia has mentioned here, "Unless we talk about the historical Delhi culture in detail, I don't think much can be written about Delhi that is unique from other cities. The walled city used to have a culture, but the lack of soul of the present article merely reflects the lack of culture of the city itself. Present Delhi culture will revolve around keywords such as PVR, immigrants, Punjabi culture, Dilli Haat, Trade Fair, Republic Day, Politicians, etc. There isn't much unique to write about. Going into the past, we can write about people like Amir Khusro, Ghalib, poetry in general, courtesans, enunchs, the havelis, partridge fighting, the Sufi mysticism (Nizamuddin, etc), Lutyens, Anglo-Indians, etc"
However, mentioning these things in "History" is probably unnecessary, as the section is largely geopolitical history discussing the city in general. We have to remember not to make the article a huge one. At least, these things do not merit more than a sentence or two in the History section. On the other hand, in "Culture", we have covered thepresent cultural aspects of the city. Why should we be bothered much about the past? One or two sentences might do it. "Amir Khusro, Ghalib, poetry in general, courtesans, enunchs, the havelis, partridge fighting, the Sufi mysticism (Nizamuddin, etc), Lutyens, Anglo-Indians, etc..." belong to a Delhi that is bygone. IMO, we cannot describe these things at length in the article.
IMO, the things that we can add further to "Culture" are the art galleries, museums, drama school etc. And will be adding bits about Amir Khusroo, Ghalib, Urdu poetries soon. Please comment. Trying to infuse soul (which is probably really lacking!) will go on increasing the size. Still, some very well-crafted writing may help to incorporate some more bits of Old Delhi culture without adding much to the size. Any suggestion/ copyedit/ help welcome. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.