Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Maharashtra/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maharashtra

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… have expanded the whole article recently and planning to take it for GA level. I'll add sources to all which are not referenced. All suggestions are welcome. Thank You. :) --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 14:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dharmadhyaksha
  • Will go through the article and add tags accordingly there itself. But be prepared, many cn & when? tags are gonna come. Lotsa stuff seems outdated now. (like for example there are 36 districts in Maharashtra since 1st August 2014 and not 35.)
  • With cursory glance, many images included are of Mumbai. Maybe hunting images of other places would be good. The article seems more like of Mumbai than Maharashtra if images are seen.
  • And am very glad to see Bhagwat's image. Cliché would be to use Tendulkar. So good! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the reason why I asked for peer review. Article need thorough inspection. I was so scared to use Bhagwat's image, as someone might call me Tendulkar hater just like Sharapova, LOL. I tried to find images other than which are related to Mumbai (Transportation and Education sections contains most). Will change once I find proper replacement. I am going to add citation from now onward. Please list more issues, all are welcome. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 12:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Ugog Nizdast
  • Since Dharmadhyaksha has got here first, I'll start checking from the bottom of the article. I agree with what he says....too many images of Mumbai rather than the state, better do some trimming there. I, too, will tag bomb wherever I check, so be prepared.
  • Again, too much focus on Mumbai even in the hatnotes, I rearranged them per WP:HATNOTE and trimmed down some excess few. Besides "Main" which is essential per WP:SUMMARY, I still feel there is an overload of these hatnotes, mainly the "See Also" ones.
  • There is obviously as issue of WP:DUPLINKS, consider using User:Ucucha/duplinks. If you feel this is too tedious, I don't mind doing it myself. Let me know.
Hi, Ugog Nizdast. I have removed panaroma of the stadium, meanwhile replaced images related to Mumbai. But Transport section contains some, because I didn't find any, so it was necessary. WP:DUPLINKS is totally new for me (never heard it before). It would be so nice if you take care of it. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 17:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay done this one myself. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sports" section:
    • I feel that panaroma of the stadium shouldn't be here, as there is already too much focus on Mumbai.
    • Along with Bhagwat's, why not try to add Pillay's, Tendulkar's and Gavaskar's...if possible? Maybe by decreasing the sizes and somehow fitting them together.

More to come, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Covered both points.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 09:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow, only Bhagwat's pic is still there. Is it possible for you include the others? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Culture" and "Media" sections too seriously lack citations. Better import those from the subarticles they summaries and try to answer all the cn tags. Anything WP:LIKELY to be challenged will need an inline citation. If you can't find a citation and you feel that the information is not that important, I suggest you remove it.

-Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually after doing several researches I found that state uses more electricity than any other state of India. So thought it would be good idea to have a subsection with particular name. But nevertheless, please suggest whether to keep it or not.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 09:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then by all means keep it! just answer the sourcing problem. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ugog Nizdast: No, that's good. Like you said it would make upcoming GA review easier, which will be beneficial for me. Anyway, I will try my best to overcome citation problem.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 07:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then remember to clear/address all the tags before the review starts. Feel free to remove the unnecessary ones. I think most of the citations you can get from the individual articles linked. -Ugog Nizdast (talk)
Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 15:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ugog Nizdast: Indeed table is important and useful, have restored it. I do not know who removed it(must be an IP user). Actually, I get very less time to check article. Also I have made copy edit request here. I might ask you to review this particular article. This will help me to save my time.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 15:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bad copy-editor myself...it is good that you made a post at the GOCE. By the way, I'm halfway through my review of the article. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ugog Nizdast: Tell when you are done. Will nominate it only after you ask me.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 09:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is really no need for that. But anyway, now that you say this...I'll try to finish this faster so that you can close this review and do the GA nom. Be aware that GA nominations can take terribly long to get a willing reviewer, right now according to Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report#Old nominations, the oldest ones are greater than almost six months. Be prepared to wait. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ugog Nizdast: I've convinced myself. You know, nominated Vivah for GA but it's been 3 weeks no user showed little interest. Though have asked some people who are major contributor in film related articles. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 16:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, mainly due to the problem of too many people expecting reviews and too few willing reviewers. Best is to wait it out, it will happen *eventually*. No need to {{ping}} me, as this page was always on my watchlist. BTW I should be free tomorrow to resume this review and (hopefully) plan to end this within seven days. Maybe your request at the GOCE will also happen by then. Anyway let's remember there is no deadline. :) -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While writing Uttar Pradesh, I was told that lead section doesn't contain references. I will made some changes in history section as it needs some serious attention.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 07:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the guideline is WP:LEAD which is part of the Good article criteria. Unless any claim is really that controversial, it doesn't require a inline citation in the lead since it just summarises what the rest of the article says. I'll see if it has needs any basic copy editing and whether it is comprehensive and summarises all the sections well enough. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
done Added references in History section.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 06:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead looks fine to me, except for this statement "therefore, the proportion of the urban population (45.23 percent) contrasts starkly...many large towns". I had to read this two-three times and I'm still not sure whether I understood it. Perhaps you can word this better?
It actually means most of state's parts are not suitable for agriculture so the local people go to cities to earn. Which is the main reason state has more populated cities than any other Indian state. removing since it seems confusing.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 06:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's actually better, why not add it back somehow like this Most of state's regions are not suitable for agriculture causing the rural people to migrate to the urban areas, which is the main reason for it having more populated cities than any other Indian state. Maharashtra also has the highest level of urbanisation. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea. I just did. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 07:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "History",
    • these statements which I tagged as unsourced seem POVish to me " On 1 May 1960, following mass protests and sacrifice of 105 human lives ... The demand of the local people of merging some of the Marathi speaking areas of Karnataka namely Belgaum, Karwar and Nipani is still pending.". Better try to reword it when you find sources for it.
done: Yes, Source will help to get it. Just added one. Changed that sentence too. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 07:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
done: Removed. Doesn't play any role in particular section.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 07:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, no need to remove it, I think this would make a valuable addition to the page. I've did some digging and from Ajanta Caves, there are mentions of it being linked to the Satavahana Dynasty and Vakataka Dynasty. For example, to quote: "According to Walter Spink, they were made during the period 100 BCE to 100 CE, probably under the patronage of the Satavahana dynasty (230 BCE – c. 220 CE) and argued that most of the work took place over the very brief period from 460 to 480 CE, during the reign of Emperor Harishena of the Vakataka dynasty...".
I found this reference Ali Javid (January 2008). World Heritage Monuments and Related Edifices in India. Algora Publishing. p. 101. which can be used. Make it say something like "The Ajanta caves in present-day Aurangabad display influences from the Satavahana and Vakataka style. The caves were possibly excavated during this period." and reword and add this to the image caption as well. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Artice is currently undergoing copy editing. Will add 1-2 sentence once GOCE is finished with copy editing.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 18:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay done. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for keeping this PR for so long, I've been online but couldn't find time to do any serious wiki-activity. Two more issues have popped up:

That's okay. Actually I wasn't aware of WP:CAPTION. But now will remove all full-stops.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 18:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:IMAGE, pics need to be ideally next to the text they support. Better move that Bombay Presidency map back to the last few paras which discuss it.

I formally conclude this PR here, I think its ready for a GAR in addition to me being a little strict on the sourcing. You can nominate it but make sure all the maintenance tags are removed/addressed first. It doesn't matter whether your GOCE request gets answered or not since the GA criteria is lenient on the prose quality. I'll continue to watch this and follow the GA review when it happens. Ask if you have any further questions. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will nominate it right after it's done with copy editing. But the concern you know, as I get less time to visit this place. I may not be able to reply in time.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 18:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what is the problem with ref. #123. Can you fix it.
Done, the url link was missing the 'https://'. Why don't you do those above two points I said about Ajanta caves and the Mumbai Presidency pic thing before doing the GA nom? or do you want me to do it? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be so helpful. Please do so mate.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 13:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it necessary that every section must contain at least one image file?--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 04:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find good images, then better...as long as they fulfil IMAGE RELEVANCE they should be fine. Not a problem if any section doesn't contain one. WP:IMAGELOCATION may answer your question further. And, I'll make those changes which I mentioned. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I thinks it's ready for GA nomination. Only have to add few references. Will nominate it day after tomorrow.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 16:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Maharashtra/archive1&oldid=1138563664"