Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bangalore

Bangalore
This is a self nomination for an article on a metropolitan city in South India. Major portions of the article were QA'd and edited based on output received from a peer review conducted this month. AreJay, Pamri, Rama's Arrow, Sundar and Mgummess are some of the contributors who have worked to improve the quality of the article. AreJay 21:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Object- Lots of figures(numbers) on the page, many of them are inaccurate and nobody bothers to change them. Article is more of a show-off/PR page with useless comparisons with other cities of India. This page should be about information regarding Bangalore...not how and why it is better. Last time I checked ..it had a complete section on "List of HR Consultants"...on the page..ridiculous.
 * Support-Well documented subject, very well resourced, illustrated with proper images, Comprehensive and concise enough and fulfils all the requirements for FA-Status.-- Shyam ( T / C ) 21:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support object for now. The article has come along fantastically since being listed at peer review, so I hate to say this, but it seems to more prominently cover the positive facets of the city. Among the few drawbacks listed are the infrastructure problems, and that is covered quite quickly. What are the major problems facing the city? Poverty was also covered quickly, only noting that 8% living in slums is less than other Indian cities. That sounds very high on a world scale, though I could be wrong. Is there any significant social/religious conflict? What about crime and crime rates?--The article says higher, but is it the highest of Indian cities, and is there a way to compare it to other cities worldwide? I see it does mention sewage being sent into the river. How much if any is treated and not dumped? Are there other environmental problems? Water shortages are mentioned, what about power? Is it consistent? Ok, sorry to be a pain, but I think this is an important issue affecting NPOV. - Taxman Talk 21:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will try and elaborate on some of those issues, although I'm not sure if there's a way to determine how much of the sewage being dumped into the rivers is being treated. There is information indicating that sewage from both rivers are treated at facilities located 30 km from the city, but I'm not sure if the proportion can be quantified. Environmental problems are covered in the main article (Bangalore Metropolitan Environment) and I will insert some salient points from that article into the Bangalore article. AreJay 21:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Taxman, my understanding from your comments was that you wanted to see a comparison to some of the statistics that had been cited. I have tried to incorporate that detail into the article now. I have added information on power shortages, added some information on the air quality of the city, comparing it to other cities in the country and have expanded the crime rates section. It is a little difficult to compare crime rates of cities in different countries because rampant crimes as described in the Indian Penal Code such as Sati and dowry may have a lower to none incidence in other parts of the world. I have explained in the article, however, that Bangalore experienced the highest incidence of crime for a major metropolitan city. As far as social/regilious conflicts, I have not come across such incidents as part of my research. Communal riots that occured in other parts of the country in the recent past did not really spread to Bangalore. Does this suffice? AreJay 22:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My bigger point was the positives are promoted more prominently than the negatives. The specific examples I pointed out were just that. It's a little better, but the overall POV has got to be more neutral. - Taxman Talk 00:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think what Taxman means is that the article portrays Bangalore as a rising city of "India Shining", sorta...Like the media coverage that puts up Bangalore so over-prominently. This article may be giving the impression that India is beyond some very serious problems that continue to exist today, and that its population lives the "yuppy" life. The lead mentions "Silicon Valley of India" but speaks not of infrastructure/social problems. I think he's asking for that sorta balance. While I don't think its a serious problem, but it is a good point that can be fixed quickly. Won't change my vote though. Rama&#39;s Arrow 00:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The POV bias should have been adequetly addressed now. Before the peer review, the article actually had a complete section dedicated to problems in the city. We moved that piece to a new article and only retained parts of it to effectively address time independence in the main article. I have moved a good portion of that back into the article and hopefully that should sufficiently highlight some of the problems that plague Bangalore and provide readers a more complete and comprehensive picture of the city. AreJay 01:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes that's much better. The bit on sewage could still stand to say if there is any sewage processing for the city. Any dumped into the river isn't processed, so is there any that is so that it isn't dumped? - 18:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you asking if there are alternate methods for the discharge and treatment of sewage in the city? I just added some information on Bangalore's sewerage system and sewage processing plants. AreJay 20:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Support - excellent work. Let's be clear that my contribution was purely superficial. Hats off to AreJay! Rama&#39;s Arrow 00:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Something should be done with the map at the top of the page. It took my eye a couple seconds of searching to see Bangalore; it should be clearer than that. Perhaps the other city names on the map could be removed, or the neighbouring countries erased, or the map color reduced a little. See Canberra or Sheffield or Seattle, Washington for an idea. Andrew Levine 04:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Support. Andrew Levine 17:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 *  Conditional support – I would like to see Taxman's comments addressed first. Other than that, the extreme temperatures do not have an exact source ie. #15 points to nowhere. Though the min temp 7.6 is plausible, the only source points to 12 °C, which is what I had added. You'd have to go deeper into the history again. I've also added a comment on the talk:Bangalore page regarding the proper nouns. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  04:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, many single years are wikilinked in this article. Manual of Style (dates and numbers) tells us not to do this unless the link provides necessary context (or is otherwise important). I have seen bots go through a de-link these single years. Also, this statement "The Kingdom of Mysore relocated its capital from Mysore city to Bangalore in 1831" is referenced to "Public Space in Bangalore" but I cannot find info on this 1831 move in there. Please let me know what part I should be looking at. I also see Taxman's point, the "Demographics" section says 8% of the population lives in slums but one of the references (bottom of page 38) says 25%. --maclean 25 06:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 *  Conditional Strong Support, Great article and superb effort Arejay!! But Taxman's concerns are valid and needs to be addressed. About the social/religious conflicts: The post Babri Masjid demolition riots did spread in Bangalore. But I think, you should mention the 1992 Cauvery water dispute riots and similar conflicts.  There is a wealth of material here: http://www.cscsarchive.org:8081/Bangalore/Home.nsf I have already confirmed with the site owner. But anyways, will ask him to send his consent by mail. -- Pamri &bull; Talk 07:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 *  Conditional Support Strong Support. I appreciate the wonderful effort, AreJay. But, I'd like the concerns raised by Taxman, Nichalp, Pamri and others addressed. I now realise that omitting the cauvery dispute riots and the endemic social tension due to the demographic composition was a mistake. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support A great article and excellent work. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  16:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made the following modifications (some minor, some not) over the past couple of days in response to the comments:
 * 1) Added a comparison to the statistic on Bangalore's slum population . The statistic is now compared with Mumbai and Nairobi.
 * 2) Clarified the crime rate statistic, which now indicates that Bangalore has the highest incidence of crime per IPC for a major metropolis in India.
 * 3) I was unable to find information on the proportion of sewage treated. However, I have added a discussion on Solid Waste in Bangalore and the proportion that gets recycled.
 * 4) Added information on Bangalore's air quality and statistical results of the Battelle Environmental Evaluation System for the city. Also added a comparison of the air quality findings to other city's in India.
 * 5) Added a detailed discussion of social-religious tension/conflicts in the city. The article now contains information on Kannada-Tamil tensions as well as Hindu-Muslim tensions in the city.
 * 6) Changed the Infobox map to more prominently indicate the location of the city.
 * 7) Extreme temperatures reference has been inserted (extreme temperatures have been accordingly changed based on information provided by source)
 * 8) Wikified all proper nouns in the article.
 * 9) Inserted reference indicating change of capital from Mysore to Bangalore in 1831
 * 10) Added reference to Government of India's 2001 Census which indicates Bangalore's slum proportion to be 10%.
 * 11) Added information on Babri Masjid violence and Kaveri anti-Tamil riots ...all this was news to me!


 * Please provide your thoughts in light of the recent changes made. Thanks AreJay 05:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Great. I'll change my conditional support to full support once the repeat wikilinks within each section are removed . I've removed some of them. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Done! I have removed all repeat wikilinks within sections. AreJay 15:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Great article, with everything that a good Wikipedia article should have. It has no bias, and includes many references.  The information in the article is all relevant and the article is clear and concise, yet very comprehensive. AmbExThErMaL 20:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support after concerns raised by User:Taxman and User:Sundar were politely addressed. Saravask 00:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. There might be some subtle issues to resolve, but it's FA material overall. deeptrivia (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - truly deserved, well sourced and most objections handled. --Gurubrahma 11:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Object Poorly referenced and ToC is not comprehensive enough. --Bob 17:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)