Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hyderabad, India/archive4

Hyderabad, India

Hyderabad, India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Hyderabad, India/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Hyderabad, India/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Hyderabad, India/archive3
• Featured article candidates/Hyderabad, India/archive4
• Featured article candidates/Hyderabad, India/archive5
• Featured article candidates/Hyderabad, India/archive6

Nominator(s): Omer123hussain (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, since it is GA, we initally work a lot on the article and thought it qualify for FAC, thus we nominated it for FAC, which was withdrawal very soon after realizing our lack of inconsistency in grammar and copy editing. Thus after every attempt of c/e and peer review, we approached for FAC, and every time we experienced lack of native english peer review. Then we approached Stfg for peer review and copy editing, which he accepted and with lot of his experience and patients he is copy editing and guiding us since more than one month and we completed all the required corrections and errors advised by him. We all now see that the article is ready and meets the standards of FA. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Everything looks to be in order. FallingGravity (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Review by SandyGeorgia

Oppose, mainly on prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Please see WP:ACCESS-- I believe I've corrected most.
• Further reading is out of control; please trim.
• An independent copyedit is needed; prose deficiencies are everywhere. I had typed up a long list of samples when the webpage timed out. I will come back later with samples, but Wikipedia is glitching just now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Trimmed further reading.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Will wait some of your copyedit samples, Sandy. The main contributor (who is the nominator of this FAC) of the article realized the need of copyedit several months earlier. I helped him initially, but the expertise needed is beyond my ability. So, the article underwent independent copyedit by a member of the league of copyeditors. Still there were problems. Stfg (talk · contribs), another League member and independent reviewer, then kindly stepped in and did a really thorough copyedit as well as source evaluation. So I was wondering how else can we get yet more independent copyedits. Anyway, we'll wait for your input. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry folks, Wikipedia was whacky this morning. I'll put up samples momentarily. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Random sections indicative of ce needs:

Its predominant topography is sloping rocky terrain of grey and pink granites. Several small hillocks are scattered throughout the area. Hyderabad has an average altitude of 1,778 feet (542 m) above mean sea level. Its highest point is Banjara Hills at 2,206 feet (672 m). In 1996 the city had 140 lakes and counted 834 water tanks smaller than 10 hectares (25 acres). The city's lakes are often called sagar (sea). Hussain Sagar, built in 1562, is near the city centre. Osman Sagar and Himayat Sagar are artificial lakes created by dams on the Musi.

1. Redundancy, a hillock is "small" isn't it? Granite is rocky. Its predominant topography is sloping terrain of grey and pink granite, dotted with small hills.
   • "Large" and "small" are relative to the class of the noun they qualify. Thus, one may speak of a large mouse, even though it is smaller than a small man. Hillocks come in a range of sizes. So a small hillock is just smaller than most hillocks. Not redundant. Your revision reads well otherwise. --Stfg (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Short choppy sentences, merge these two: Hyderabad's average altitude is 1,778 feet (542 m) above mean sea level; its highest point is Banjara Hills at 2,206 feet (672 m).
   • Do you really believe that replacing a full stop with a semicolon makes any difference to "choppiness"? --Stfg (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
     • No, that whole paragraph needed work and better merging of sentences. I'd rather see more interesting prose and construction. I only offer suggestions to highlight issues, but how to best fix them is better left to a copyeditor who would rework the entire para ideally, incorporating the notion that "hillocks" and "altitude" might be somehow related. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
       • Tried my hand at copy-editing this area. I hope there is no glaring mistake (did I miss a comma?). Please have a look.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
3. Why do we have an "as of" date (1996) on the number of lakes-- are they going to change? We have a mix of lakes information and water tank information, where the water tanks need to be separated from the lake info. Why are we mentioning only smaller water tanks? Are there larger ones? The water tanks don't belong in this section (topography); why are they here? Are those little lakes? Why do we define lakes (sagar) after we talk about them? The flow is all off. Why "and counted"? The city had 140 lakes samller than 10 hectares ? Is that what is meant? Is tanks meant to refer to reservoirs ??? I can't fix this section without knowing what it's trying to say.

The term water tank gave rise to much of the confusion in this case. Water tank means ponds/ resvoirs/ smaller water bodies (smaller than lakes). These are bigger than the ponds that we see in the lawns or gardens of homes in the United States, but smaller than dedicated reservoirs. those usually serve a small population in the vicinity, who visit the ponds for bathing/ washing cloths, washing utensils, and sometimes for using the water for drinking. I added ponds within parenthesis after water tanks in the article. The sagar is defined after the lake and water tanks sentence because the sentences succeeding the sagar definition sentence mention three examples of sagar. The readers will learn what sagar means, and then right after that they will see three such example. That's why the sagar definition comes after the number of lakes and before the examples of sagars.

The year (1996) is given since the statistics is from then. Indeed the numbers of ponds may change. Many face landfills as those lands sell in high prices in urban areas with land shortage. Indeed local governments have rules against land filling of existing ponds. (This trend has, fortunately, significantly decreased now).--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It is more understandable now (most English speakers woulndn't assume a "pond" is a "water tank", but as of this version, we still have the same choppiness in the lake situation that I mentioned with the hill situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, tried to copy-edit this area. Not sure if the choppiness is smoother. Please have a look.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Skipping around, I see prose issues everywhere I look:

1. The foreign population declined after Hyderabad State became part of the Indian Union. (why?)
   • Interesting question, if the source covers it, but not a prose issue. --Stfg (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
   1. • Corrected, as it declined due to the lost of patronage from Nizams. )---Omer123hussain (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
2. The Telugu spoken in Hyderabad is a dialect called Telangana and the Urdu spoken here is called Dakhan ... spoken "here"? The dialects can be merged with the earlier sentence, for better flow.
   • "Here" has been removed. I could not merge the sentence with the earlier sentence, but moved it up right after the official language sentence. Perhaps this would be better flow.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
3. According to a 2012 report submitted by GHMC to the World Bank, Hyderabad has 1,476 slums with a total population of 1.7 million, of whom 66% live in 985 slums in the "core" of the city (the part that formed Hyderabad before the April 2007 expansion) and the remaining 34% live in 491 in suburban tenements. ... don't know how to fix this, but at minimum, redundancy, Accoding to a 2012 GHMC report to the World Bank ... don't even know what the "of whom 66%" refers to .... is this trying to say ... According to a 2012 GHMC report to the World bank, 1.7 million residens of Hyderabad live in 1,476 slums; 66% of those slum residents live in 985 slums in the part of Hyderabad that was its center before the 2007 expansion, and 34% live in 491 suburban tenements.
   • It's a little difficult to respond helpfully when you splatter comments between ellipses, and don't distinguish quote from commentary. "of whom 66%" refers to the previous noun phrase, "a total population of 1.7 million", as grammatically I'm told it must. Yes, that's what it means. What else could it mean? Are you not slightly uncomfortable about three occurrences of "slum" in one sentence? --Stfg (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
     • Yes, I'm uncomfortable with three occurrences of "slum"; as I said, I don't know how to best fix this, but it is a recurring issue in many India articles. As I discovered on a different Indian city FAC or FAR, slums have some sort of official designation, which is a foreign concept to US readers, and then we get all tangled up in the construction of the population and number of slums. What is there in the version today is still impenetrable and appears grammatically incorrect:
       • Hyderabad has 1,476 slums with a total population of 1.7 million, of whom 66% live in 985 slums in the "core" of the city (the part that formed Hyderabad before the April 2007 expansion) and the remaining 34% live in 491 in suburban tenements.[88] About 22% of the slum-dwelling households had migrated from different parts of India in the last decade of the 20th century,
         • The "of whom 66% live" seems to mean population, yet refers back to slums ... do slums live? Did households migrate or did people migrate? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
         • No need for sarcasm. I imagine you're concerned about the possessive antecedent (q.v.) but that is controversial. The antecendent of "whom" is always personal, thus no ambiguity. I was not referring to issues of the use of "slum", but to the issue of repetitiousness. --Stfg (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
           • Stfg, there is no sarcasm there, not even vaguely intended, implied, or anything else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
4. Of all the cities of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad is the largest contributor to the state's GDP, tax and other revenues. ... "of all the cities" is awkward, Andhra Pradesh is a state, no? ... Hyderabad is the largest contributor to Andhra Pradesh's GDP, tax, and other revenues.
   • The sense of the original, which your version loses, is that Hyderabad is the largest contributor among cities, not considering other classes of contributor. You should explain the "awkward" -- it looks like a personal style preference to me. The fact that Andhra Pradesh is a state seems irrelevant to this. --Stfg (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
     • No, the prose should make this clear -- don't explain it here on FAC, fix the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
       • There are other sub-provincial entities such as district, villages that contribute to teh state's GDP. A district's GDP may be larger than a city's. So, "among cities" has been used. Any suggestion?--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
       • Sandy, the prose does make it clear. My point is that your suggestion incorrectly changes the meaning. --Stfg (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
5. Hyderabad is known as the "City of Pearls" on account of its role in the pearl trade. ... On account of?
   • The problem ...? --Stfg (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
     • Colloquial, informal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
       • Not borne out by the OED (if you have subscription, see here and look for "on (also †upon) account of" in the sidebar. We could replace it with "because of" of course, but this is only personal style preference. --Stfg (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
6. I don't know what it means for "cuisine to become prominent". Don't know what that wants to say, so can't suggest how to fix it.
   • It means that it it has come to the forefront of people's attention. Isn't this the normal figurative meaning of prominent? --Stfg (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
7. "Skilled" use of spices? Don't know what is meant by skilled there.
   • Good spicing involves a lot of skill. Skilful would also work, but they are practically synonyms, and I think this is merely a question of style preference. --Stfg (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
     • [minor side comment] I thought the use of "skilled" in such a context was appropriate. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
       • OK, I'll accept that one, although I find it strange-- perhaps that's why I don't cook :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
         • LoL :) --Dwaipayan (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
         • I do, but my spicing is terrible. --Stfg (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

These are just random samples, I didn't even try to read through everything, and there is too much for me to list it all. An independent copyedit is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There have already been two "independent" copy edits, the most recent of which involved very extensive and detailed discussion. as you may see from the article's talk page. However, I have posted at WT:GOCE asking for help from a writer of professional standard. Having done so, I shall stand aside now and let whoever comes forward work their magic. --Stfg (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Revisting, I still find things like:

• Hyderabad underwent very sudden growth in the first decade of the 21st century.

• What's the difference between "very sudden" and "sudden"? Reading the rest of the text, it seems like it was, well, instant and based on a redefinition, in which case better adjectives could be found.

Removed very. Could not think of a better adjective. Suggestions?--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Rapid? --Stfg (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• The chief materials used in these constructions are granite and lime mortar.

• Convoluted, is something like "Granite and lime mortar are mainly used in these structures"?

Changed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no, Sandy. Your revision now says that these structures are the main uses of granite and lime mortar. That's absurd. I have revised to restore the correct meaning. --Stfg (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I made no revision, I asked a question ... it is up to those who know the material and the sources to copyedit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hyderabad's first dial-up Internet access became available in the early 1990s but was initially limited to computer software development companies.

• Why "but"?

No but anymore. Please have a look.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Schools in Hyderabad are affiliated to the CBSE, the SSC or the ICSE,

• All acronyms, but linking to real names ... the US reader not familiar with these terms has to click to find out what the setence means.

Changed to full names.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is not in terrible shape, but the prose is not yet at FA standard ... another set of eyes should be able to bring it across the line. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's at least a bit more moderate, but it's still a sweeping dismissal, and in the light of the number of plain errors in the review, doesn't inspire much respect, frankly. A further, expert copy edit has been requested. I fear that my continued activity here could discourage the next one from starting, so I definitively will not post here again. SandyGeorgia may have the last word. --Stfg (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That's an unhelpful attitude, and your read on "mistakes" is simply a failure to collaborate and recognize that when something is unclear to the reader/reviewer, it's best left to the editors who know the material to fix it. I'm sorry you feel this way about my review ... Dwaipayanc and I, on the other hand, have a long history of working together to clear up prose on Indian articles, so I hope you'll learn from him how to interact in content review and reconsider your position. Perhaps you feel that my critique was aimed at you: for the record, I don't typically look at history when reviewing, precisely so I won't be influenced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Further comments by Adam Cuerden

• Issue: The map is rather... awkward. Lots of colours used, no key or labels to explain what they mean, and, while it does make an effort to show where other population centres are, they aren't actually labelled, and you'd only know this if you clicked on it, which removes the Hyderabad label. Still, it should be easily usable to make a more suitable map. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Which map are you referring to? The one in info box , or the one in geography section? The one in geography section is from open street, so probably beyond our capacity to change. The one in info box is probably in the same pattern as other indian city articles. I will check.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you think it is better to use the File:India location map.svg, as exemplified in the article Delhi? That would be easier to understand for readers, rather than using the map of the state.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Neither are entirely ideal - the India locator map doesn't include other cities, so it's not particularly informative, really. Perhaps just use grey text and to put in the other city names onto the map that's already there, and use a different icon for Hyderabad? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Showing other cities isn't a requirement for pin maps. In fact it makes it look cluttered. A simple svg quality grey shaded neutral map just showing the city will suffice. You can use wikiatlas or google maps to see in relation to other cities.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Blofeld

Surprised to see that not many book sources have been used to write this. I personally prefer to rely on book sources for major cities. dubaicityguide.com, asiawaves.net etc are not ideal source material, maybe they're not replaceable with better book sources but still... The further reading section at least could be much better I think, I can improve the books listed there at least. I'd prefer to see a little more detail on some of the major landmarks, but generally I think its a nice summary of the city. I can try to improve the prose tomorrow if desirable. I'll try to get you a decent svg locator for Andhra Pradesh, can't stand the shoddy colored maps, so 2005. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that would be great ( everything, improvement of further reading, prose, and the svg map). Feels great when we see the most prolific wikipedian helping out.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Made a map for you, added a state locator in India; ideally all Indian state maps should have an Indian corner locator too.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do work on the prose, Dr. Blofeld. It may not have been understood, but I wanted to step aside to make room for precisely that, not for the "attitude" that has been ascribed to me. Please go ahead. --Stfg (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Blofeld, I changed your sub-heading to a fourth level since we have new FAC instructions on subheads as of just this week-- seems that our old convention had WP:ACCESS issues and we were asked to change to fourth-level sub-headings. Thank you for stepping up here; would someone pls ping me when Blofeld is done so I can revisit my oppose? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Senra

I have been invited to comment here following my offer here.

Structure of the article

I have compared the structure of this version of the article with the guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities and with the existing featured article Kolkata (promoted 2006 and reviewed as keep in 2012). See also the comparably sized featured metropolitan city article San_Francisco (promoted 2006 and reviewed as keep in 2008). I see the following ...

• Kolkata closely matches the recommended section headings and order of such headings in the guideline; Hyderabad does not. As an example (but there are more examples) the Education section follows Government in the guidelines and in Kolkata but is near the bottom of Hyderabad and is four paragraphs long in Hyderabad against the recommended maximum three. There are many other structural anomalies including but not exclusively Hyderabad's Economy section being too far down the article --Senra (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Toponymy

• Toponymist Everett-Heath (2012) marginally disagrees with the current sources in the article. He says that this former princely state was previously called Bhāgnagar after one of the sultan's concubines, a dancing girl named Bhāgmati. Hyderābād, named in 1591, comes from haydar (lion) and ābād (city). Haydar was the nickname of Ali ibn Abī Tālib (c.600–61), the fourth caliph (651–61) --Senra (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Everett-Heath, John (2010). The Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names (2 ed.). England: OUP. ISBN 9780199580897. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Where is the disagreement? That's what the article says, perhaps with slightly more detail available in other sources.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This comment has made me rethink my reviewing of this article. I am done. I am trying to help but the combative responses from both main editors of this article makes it hard to continue. I am sorry. To close this one off: the section currently does not say what Everett-Heath says. The section does not say it was a princely state nor does it directly say it was previously called Bhāgnagar (note the diacritic). The section does not say that Hyderābād, named in 1591, comes from haydar (lion) and ābād (city) --Senra (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• In addition, I am struggling (with myself) trying to determine whether the section heading Toponymy is correct. I suspect it should be Etymology but I am gathering my facts about this first. I think (at the moment) that on balance, the three references currently cited in this section are not toponymy references and therefore, if you stick with those references, call the section Etymology. However, if you use an establish place-name (i.e. a toponymist's) source (such as Everett-Heath [2012] above) then indeed, it should be called Toponymy. Note that I might change my view here after further research. I would welcome input from an establish FAC reviewer on this before the principal editors respond

This toponymy versus etymology debate happened here.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There was a discussion about that here, if you'd like to take a look. Please excuse the tangents. Cheers. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a tangent. Thank you both for pointing me there. My reading of that debate suggest that Toponymy is correct but is probably too academic and thus less easy to understand for an article directed at a global audience --Senra (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, extremely sorry that I sounded combative. This won't repeat. Next, I must have overlooked the lion part (abode of lion) -- again sorry for that. At that point of time, I was editing from iPhone, and perhaps that led to mistake in reading; given that I am not the primary contributor to the article, I do not know everything from heart, so should have been careful. However, I did not find Torchiest's comment combative at all, he was probably pointing to the tangential (off-topic) comments in that discussion.

Again, sincere apologies. And we really want you back,as you have been doing great. As you have noticed, I did not reply to your initial comments (article structure), as I was planning to re-structure it based on your recommendation. Please resume your detailed review.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Apology accepted. To be absolutely clear, and as stated elsewhere, I have no issue with reasoned responses such as yours here and Torchiest's here. To further clarify, it had nothing whatsoever to do with a so far nil response from my structure comment—I am very patient. What upset me was your comment here coupled with responses elsewhere by Stfg (talk · contribs). A reviewer is putting time, in my case over three hours this afternoon, into helping editors. I fully accept that not all reviewers comments are correct. Indeed, editors could and should take some reviewer comments with a pinch of salt. But don't snark back. Bad form. Especially (in my opinion) you were wrong. In the case above, I was comparing my source and the article was missing the derivation of the city name of lion. This is, in my opinion, inexcusable from a toponymy point of view. I'm done here. Good luck with the article. It deserves to be featured and I am certain it will be in time --Senra (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Senra (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)