Wikipedia:Peer review/Delhi/archive1

Delhi

A GA, this article needs attention in certain aspects so that it can be brought to FA status. The article is under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities. Thorough copyedit in order to bring the language to a "compelling" level is required. Size can be decreased. Sections like "Culture", "Government and politics" need to be compressed. Also, there is need of wikilinking several proper nouns. Please put citation needed tags where you feel citation is needed. Please review the article and help improve it. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Make sure that citations are put right after a full stop or comma with no space. Also don't put them in a middle of a sentence. M3tal H3ad 12:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

'60,000 Monuments'

The statement in the LEAD "Delhi was the capital of several empires in ancient India and has over 60,000 recognized monuments erected over several millennia" is slightly ambiguous.

As far as I am aware, the ASI protects only around 3600 monuments in India (Some reports claim 5000 including secondary structures). So the above statement which has come from a web page may need clarification. Does the 60,000 number include ASI monuments (national monuments)/State protected monuments/Local Heritage structures and other plinths etc. Under any circumstance, the article should provide a link to ASI website linked to monuments of Delhi. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 21:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dinesh for bringing this to notice. The number of ancient monuments and archaeological sites and remains of national importance in Delhi is 175, according to Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). This info has now been incorporated in the article, and the appropriate page of ASI website used as a reference. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Conversely, it does not make sense to simply replace 60,000 with 175 in the sentence as the latter does not have nearly the same impact as the former. I would suggest taking that part out of the lead. I would replace 175 by a more general term like "many". --Blacksun 12:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I have added the sources where {{fact}} was marked. I would have nominated the article for peer review long back but my major concern was the distinction between the articles on National Capital Territory of Delhi and Delhi. Most of the data in the article is from the economic survey of Delhi which is for the entire NCT and not just the metropolis of Delhi. Getting data specifically for the metropolis of Delhi is impossible as the GoI considers no distinction between the metropolis of Delhi and NCT. Alternatively, the article on Delhi could be on the area which lies under the administration of the Municipal Council of Delhi which would mean a partial re-write of the article. But that would be difficult as MCD does not carry out its own study and both MCD and NDMC work closely. Also, Delhi Cantt. has its own municipal council. According to me, the most sensible thing to do is to merge articles on NCT and Delhi but nobody got my point so I stopped pushing this article for a peer review. The intro para itself suggests that NCT and Delhi cover more or less the same topic. --Incman|वार्ता 05:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, as the lead goes, NCT and Delhi cover more or less the same topic. Yes, I agree with Deepak that the article NCT should redirect to Delhi, following the merger. --Dwaipayan (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)