Wikipedia:Peer review/Gangtok/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Gangtok
Need to have this page (Gangtok) critiqued. Wrote a lengthy article on this mysterious capital of the state of Sikkim, India complete with images. I fear that the page is too much of a "travel magazine" and maybe a little too verbose. Nichalp 20:55, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
-
- You're being too hard on yourself. Most of the article is very well written, interesting, comprehensive, and covers the subject from a variety of angles and with the right degree of depth. The images are superb. I think the opening two paragraphs need to be written in more conversational English. They appear to be trying desperately hard to grab attention, and there is a bit of oversell in using words like "cynosure" and "sybaratic" - it makes the opening seem very pompous. I suggest toning it down somewhat, in keeping with the general style of what follows it. The other sections are well written in my opinion. The only one that I think needs revision is the "Culture" section. The first paragraph I think is out of keeping with the rest of the article because it's POV and makes generalisations about the people that is out of place. I mean phrases like "nattily dressed" etc, there must be a better way of saying essentially the same thing. I don't think it's too verbose - shortening it may achieve the result of making it static, clinical and uninteresting. As it is now, it is very readable. There are tiny traces of "travel magazine" scattered throughout the article in the form of a few adjectives, that would be better served by more neutral/generic terms. Maybe some of the adjectives could be reconsidered, but that's a very minor point. Rossrs 11:34, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'll take a close look on the first para on the culture; yes, it is out of sync with the heading. As for the intro, my personal opinion is that all encyclopedic articles need an eye catching phrase there. Pompous true, but it must be truthful and colourful at the same time. Nichalp 20:33, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I got what you said about the first para. Yeah, it was repetitive. I now merged the sentences. Also toned down the culture part. Nichalp 18:47, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
- I think you've done a great job. You said about needing it to be truthful and colourful - I think also "lively" and the style is lively. Makes interesting reading.Rossrs 14:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I got what you said about the first para. Yeah, it was repetitive. I now merged the sentences. Also toned down the culture part. Nichalp 18:47, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
- I'll take a close look on the first para on the culture; yes, it is out of sync with the heading. As for the intro, my personal opinion is that all encyclopedic articles need an eye catching phrase there. Pompous true, but it must be truthful and colourful at the same time. Nichalp 20:33, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- You're being too hard on yourself. Most of the article is very well written, interesting, comprehensive, and covers the subject from a variety of angles and with the right degree of depth. The images are superb. I think the opening two paragraphs need to be written in more conversational English. They appear to be trying desperately hard to grab attention, and there is a bit of oversell in using words like "cynosure" and "sybaratic" - it makes the opening seem very pompous. I suggest toning it down somewhat, in keeping with the general style of what follows it. The other sections are well written in my opinion. The only one that I think needs revision is the "Culture" section. The first paragraph I think is out of keeping with the rest of the article because it's POV and makes generalisations about the people that is out of place. I mean phrases like "nattily dressed" etc, there must be a better way of saying essentially the same thing. I don't think it's too verbose - shortening it may achieve the result of making it static, clinical and uninteresting. As it is now, it is very readable. There are tiny traces of "travel magazine" scattered throughout the article in the form of a few adjectives, that would be better served by more neutral/generic terms. Maybe some of the adjectives could be reconsidered, but that's a very minor point. Rossrs 11:34, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delightful article. I would be hard pressed to improve on it. Deb 21:29, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Looks very good. I think the pictures can be bigger and the text less dense but that's more appearance than content. I think it's ready for FAC. --JuntungWu 17:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll do that, but I'll nominate the page next month as I have some prior commitments this week. I also have some loose ends to tie up on the page. Nichalp 20:12, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
