Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Uttarakhand/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uttarakhand

[edit]
Previous peer review
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… I think that the article is looking good for a FAN, I want the opinion of others to improve it further and give it finishing touches.Well....looks like not just finishing touches but major touches, may be even a revamp. Ayanosh (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ayanosh (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is one dab link I have tagged!

checkYDone.Ayanosh (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There were some bare URLs, I have fixed.

I thought i had fixed all the bare urls but thanks.Ayanosh (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

checkYDone.Ayanosh (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Education" section is not well written with some unclear terms like– ancient time (exact when?) it is believed (who believes?) More importantly, why you are placing this section at the bottom of the article? And why are you mentioning Mr. Bachcan and Rajiv Gandhi's name there? Bachchan is a graduate and Gandhi left Imperial College London without a degree!
  1.  DoneRemoved the not-so-well-written-and-cited lines.
  2. Now this is difficult i dont know what the correct format is.There is pretty much consensus that History and geography must be at the top but not about anything else.If you look at West Bengal education should be last as Uttarakhand doesn't have much of a media or sports.Also if you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian states and Delhi then also same pattern can be followed.But Karnataka has different format.So i dunno....whats the right format.
Is there any planning to create a separate article on "Education in Uttarakhand"? --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Taken cognizance, will be there soon.Ayanosh (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There is only written about their schooling in the state and not higher education.Have added links about their schooling though.Ayanosh (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also is it wrong to make citations in the format dd-mm-yy and right in the format dd mm yy
as this is what you changed with all the references.Nevertheless I have made the two new references in the end for Rajiv Gandhi and Amitabh Bachchan in your format.Ayanosh (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was an automated edit! I can not understand the first line–is it a question or a comment? --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A question.Ayanosh (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you were using DMY dates, I used a script to change date formats, I did not change those dates manually! --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the way i did it was wrong?Ayanosh (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do something to fix section indent just before education section! You may try image resize, portion rewrite, or Template:Clear
Mmmmm....what? i dont see anything odd before education section.If you are talking about the space left after first para in the tourism section,it is because the template used there and i havent been able to remove that space.Ayanosh (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneAyanosh (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OVERLINK Dehradun, Nainital etc!
  • Remove those see also recommendations which are already linked in article body!
 DoneAyanosh (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brahmin– why not capital B?
 DoneAyanosh (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sumitranandan Pant museum, Kausani"– do you have a better image? That does not explain anything!
Actually if you can read hindi you can see the words sumitranandan pant sangrahalya.But i agree it can be better than this.But there isnt any other image of the museum and i thought something related to literature would add value,so i kept it.Ayanosh (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Tito Dutta ✉ 14:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneAyanosh (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1.  DoneAyanosh (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Not done Well...I have asked for a copyedit of the article.I can do major c/e changes like grammar, structure, and things like that but such nit-picking work would be difficult.But still i can do it if you tell the places where it needs to be done or the section headings.Ayanosh (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Well i have seen the article and also West Bengal.
  2. I dont think there would be a need for separate sections for Religion and Language as they are covered in Demographics and also they are not mentioned here and are not part of FA West Bengal.As for the section on Media, I am not so sure about it.It is mentioned as optional here.Also Uttarakhand is almost 90% hilly and the population is dispersed in small remote villages, so there hasn't been much of a development in this area.But still if the consensus will be in its favour, i will write a small para about it but i dont see how it will add any value plus there wont be any image for it,already there are 3 sections without image and i feel not having images decreases the aesthetic value if not a FAC.Ayanosh (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redtigerxyz's comments
  • The lead is full of WP:RECENTISM. I am removing some recentism, feel free to revert. Though the state of Uttarakhand is new, the history of the region spans centuries. See Karnataka as a guide for lead. Mention
    • rivers: Ganga, Yamuna
    • history of region (not state only): 1 para
    • tourism like hill stations
    • population: ethnicity of people
    • stats like area; no. of districts; Garhwal, Kumaon division names
  • No need of POVs in lead like controversial
  • IMO, Chipko is part of history, not Culture

--Redtigerxyz Talk 15:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done.Have a look. Ayanosh (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

[edit]

No. Commercial site. Such sites often inflate facts as they selling product/tours of the place.

No. Commercial site

No. Commercial site

The author's reliability needs to be investigated further.

No. Commercial site

The author's reliability needs to be investigated further.

The author's reliability needs to be investigated further.

No. Commercial site

No. Commercial site

No. Commercial site Whats the opinion about these websites,can they be used as references?Ayanosh (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion given--Redtigerxyz Talk 07:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going for FAN

[edit]

I think the article is looking pretty good.If someone doesn't come with any major problem in a few days I will go for FA.If someone reads this please have a final look at the article and see if there is any problem with it.Thanks Ayanosh (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you submit the article right now for FAC, it will be removed very soon. The references are not formatted properly. Many of them lack date and accessdate. And they are inconsistently formatted, that is, the references do not follow any uniform formatting. For example, the dates have been mentioned in different styles in different footnotes.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have made some changes.Have a look.--Ayanosh (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor comments
Since i'm not invited to leave suggestion but i would like to give little.
  • First of all focus on covering almost every topic related to state.
  • FA articles demands outstanding and line to line sources,despite sources used in it are poorly formed.
  • There is publisher issues also.

Eventually,visit West Bengal, Karnataka to know more.Uttrakhand gonna be need huge work in terms of FA. Thank You --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣ 14:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS for leaving a comment.There is no need for invitation here,I would be more than happy if more people would join in.
Regarding the article it would help if you could be more precise.I have already noted the problem regarding citations as pointed out by Dwaipayan and am working on it.As for the comprehensiveness of the article i have told my opinion in the previous sections in response to Ekabhishek.Cheers!!--Ayanosh (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the whole article, but the lead looks better. But still they is not ready for FA. You try for WP:GAN. Language is definitely below par for a FA.

  • the scenic Himalayas; Chota Char Dham, one of Hinduism's most spiritual and auspicious pilgrimage circuits; Some of the most famous hill stations: WP:PEACOCK term/view. Reads too much as like a tourist guide promoting state tourism. State facts, not opinions e.g
    • "Uttarakhand has a great diversity of flora and fauna." -> Uttarakhand has more than 500 (say) species of flora and fauna.
Toatally understand your concern and happy you made the point.Still, trying to justify why it was inclded Promoted FA version of WB and Promoted FA version of Karnataka and FA version of Karnataka on 2 August.Not saying it was right.Now trying to find the data or removing the line.--Ayanosh (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ganga: common name for the river is Ganges. Use it.
Don't like to use the anglicized version of the name.I know the wikipedia has rules and my wishes need not be followed.Will use if majority say.Ayanosh (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tibetan Buddhism has also made itself felt with the recent reconstruction of Mindroling Monastery and its Buddha Stupa, touted as the world's highest,southwest of Dehradun" The language does not seem encyclopaedic and seems wordy. tout is not right here, considering its connotation.
 Done
  • " including several that have not been recorded from elsewhere in Uttarakhand" wordy: including several indigenous /native to Uttarakhand.
Could not understand it ,so used the line from UNESCO site, whether it means native to valley or Uttarakhand.Ayanosh (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are locating at different altitudes varying from 800 to 5400 meters." located.
 Done
Don't know how to deal with it.I think not having the ISBN numbers will also be an issue.Don't have the books as they were already there when i started editing.Trying to find alternate online sources.Ayanosh (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Uttarakhand/archive2&oldid=1089813824"