Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bhutan/archive1

Bhutan
Self nom: A landlocked and isolated country in the Himalayas. I've compiled it from various sources. Disclaimer: Never been to Bhutan but seen it from a distance. (My first 100% non-India article). =Nichalp  «Talk»=  06:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - a comprehensive article on a country that is less likely to be represented well in Wikipedia. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:36, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. pamri 07:35, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. But I do have some minor quabbles. I would like to see words like "promulgation", "fiefdoms" and others not in common use by regular English speakers explained shortly, or at the very least linked to another article as I've done to the two above.
 * After his death in 1652, Bhutan fell under anarchy and eventually civil war.
 * I think this is grammatically incorrect, because you're trying to say too much in one sentence. As it is written now it means "Bhutan fell under anarchy and eventually fell under civil war", but you probably mean the kingdom fell because of the anarchy and the anarchy or lack of leadership resulted in the civil war. Please expand that sentence to something less ambiguous. - Mgm|(talk) 08:18, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've modified the sentence and wikified some terms. Hope I can catch some more terms to be wikified. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:44, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support It's an excellent article (although needed a copy-edit, which I'm half-way through). The topic will be attractive to many users; the text treats all of the major aspects of this extraordinary little nation (although the section on the economy needs serious massaging), and the photos are beautiful. I think that the overall density of links is too high. I wonder whether the low-value years, such as '1710', can be delinked; they are too unfocused to be of any use to readers, and make the text a little harder to read. In addition, the likelihood that readers will follow up high-value links is significantly reduced when they are diluted by so many low-value links. Please consider using a more common word than 'gellid'. I think that 'fiefdom' and 'promulgation' are OK, but while 'fiefdom' is a specialised term that is useful to gloss by link, I'd prefer that 'promulgation' not be linked. Readers are welcome to look it up in Wiktionary if they wish; those who know what it means will think that the link will lead to something related to the topic, which it doesn't. Tony 11:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Promulgation is not a regular English word, and the article should be accessible to people unfamiliar with such terms. Linking it, provides easy the access to the definition in the article. The other option would be explaining the word in prose or choosing something easier altogether. Don't assume people know how to find Wiktionary. - 131.211.210.12 11:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I've replaced gelid with another word. As for the years, the usual practice is to wikify the first instance of its appearance. Was the MGM not logged in? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:26, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that IP was me. - Mgm|(talk) 19:06, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * For dates, the formatting is at issue, of course, but can you inform me of a good reason for linking low-value years? I have to say that I think Wikipedia should reconsider this practice, which appears to neglect the disadvantages of a high density of links (harder to read, dilutes the more valuable, topic-focused links). I have encouraged contributors to go easy on low-value links, usually without their objection. For example, the article on the United States was heaving with links; no one seeemed to mind when I delinked the years, decades and centuries (except for one year at the start that seemed highly relevant), and now the text is more black than blue. Much better. Tony 01:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but I'd prefer to go with the current wikipedia guidelines. Personally, after all these months on wikipedia, large sections of black text would look odd to me. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  10:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC) Black text like ... this page? Perhaps take a look at Australia and the United States, which are now relatively free of low-value links. See what you think. Tony 13:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Comments. I'm definitely reluctant to support an article with only six references and only one citation. Maybe I'm in the minority so I'll comment instead of object. In many ways the article is very good. It has great, and very interesting information that seems neutral and balanced in the coverage. The only big problem I see in the style is there are way too many short paragraphs that make the prose choppy and flow poorly. Either expand them or merge smoothly with related material. Also there is the offhand reference "...China, though a border dispute remains unresolved." in the military section that is not explained any further. I think that should go in the Geography section with a bit more detail. Also the economy section mentions India pays 40% of the government expenditure. Not only is that the type of thing that could use citation to a reliable source, but explanation of why in the world they would pay that would be good. - Taxman Talk 15:31, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * In this case (IMO) the number is not so important as the quality of the sources mentioned. The CIA factbook, LoC and Bhutan's official site all are classified primary sources. Throw in Encarta for crosschecking purposes, and I doubt there's too big a problem in having six really good references. I'll explain where all I've sourced them: 1. History, Geography, Culture from the Library of Congress. Economy, Demographics from CIAF, government and politics from the Bhutanese govt site, and I've used Encarta to crosscheck if they all fall in line. If you would click the LoC site, you'd find a wealth of information in sub pages. However these links are dynamic, in the sense that you cannot bookmark them, so that's the reason for fewer links. I've also reinforced that note so that it is clear that all figures are taken from the CIA site, instead of using footnotes all over the section to point to the exact same page. I hope I have provided you with a satisfactory explaination for the above; would you still require more references? I'll try and take care of your other concerns now. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:15, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the China dispute+referenced, that Indian aid is sourced from the CIA factbook, used inote, added some more inline references and inotes. Why they would pay? I'd have my own guesses, but I'll have to search for concrete reasons tomorrow. I'm not sure if I've addressed all those staggered paragraphs. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  19:05, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * All good fixes, and you're right, the LOC information is impressive. I have expanded or merged every short paragraph left except one in the history section and the one heading the districts. As for the history, the LOC site under Chapter 6, Origins and Early Settlement, A.D. 600-1600 has great information that could add 3-4 more sentences to expand the second history paragraph to fill the 1000yr time gap between the first and third paragraphs. I didn't feel remotely competent enough about the material to do that myself. As for the districts section, the LOC site mentions this "Four administrative zones (dzongdey)..." along with a few otehr bits that could expand that a bit, but I also didn't feel competent to do. Other than that it does look great and is a very interesting article. I do see quite a few inotes throughout also, so that looks good. I've changed to support, but please still expand those two paragraphs just a bit. - Taxman Talk 20:40, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Taxman: 1. I've summarised & added the missing history part. 2) added the divisions part -- dzongdey. 3) Added a footnote+reference on the clause/rationale (or whatever one wishes to call it) on India's support to Bhutan's finances. Also thanks for being bold and fixing the existing glitches. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  10:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support whole heartedly Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Promulgation is not a regular English word? What English are you speaking?  This is not the Simple English Wikipedia.  This is supposed to be an academic environment, and promulgation is a common English word, as, by the way, is fiefdom.  Gellid, on the other hand... perhaps not.  Nevertheless, I'm against too much dumbing down.  And, good article.  Support.  Exploding Boy 06:40, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * They may be common for the people in the field, but it should also be accessible to people with little knowledge of the jargon. I'm an academic (chemistry) myself and if I don't get it, I'm sure there's scores of other Wikipedians who won't either. Wikipedia should be accessible to its readers. Not just an academic environment. If the words can't be "dumbed down" or explained within the text, they should be linked so explanation is easily accessible. By the way, I'm against dumbing down too, but a reasonable amount of explanation of jargon isn't all that unreasonable. - Mgm|(talk) 12:10, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should explain jargon--that's always a good policy--but "promulgate" and "feifdom" are not specialized vocabulary or jargon, they're just words! Exploding Boy 16:20, September 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support - Nice article. Usually I don't like reading entries on countries, as I find them dull... but this one was interesting!  As for the words mentioned... why not just link them to either their own article or the wiktionary? Fieari 21:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

In the necessary debate on the boundary between common and specialised words, I have to come down on Exploding Boy's side: I think both 'promulgate' and 'fiefdom' are common enough not to be linked, and are quite OK to include in the first place. Also, let's take care distinguishing between plain, crisp language (always desirable), and dumbed-down text. Tony 01:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Support - Nice pics and a well written article. --User:Deepak gupta 02:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: Read the vocabulary debate here: Vocabulary levels =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:11, September 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Minor object . In the first paragraph it says Druk Yul is pronounced "dru ü". I really don't know what that is supposed to mean. What does the "ü" represent? A long English "oo" sound, or the sound of German "ü" or what? I'd like to see it replaced by IPA or removed. Apart from that it looks good. I've always wanted to go to Bhutan, it's really a fascinating place and would be a great topic to see featured. On the vocabulary issue I think promulgated and fiefdom are perfectly valid words to include, and shouldn't be linked. It's a little patronising to the reader to link a word on the assumption that they don't know what it means, unless it's a technical term (which these are not) or the article linked to is actually a related topic in the usual wiki-way of linking to things. In these days of online dictionaries it's really trivial to look up words. I didn't know what gelid meant, so: highlight, right-click, "Search Web for 'gelid'", flick the mouse wheel to the next tab and click on the word for the definition. Less than five seconds I think. I would rather an article used a word like gelid and forced me to look it up than had to be dumbed-down to cater to gaps in my vocabulary. &mdash; Trilobite 21:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I've emended the text. I can't find the pronounciation anywhere, so have removed it. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:27, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for that. We will have to hope someone fluent in Dzongkha comes along and updates us. &mdash; Trilobite 09:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Can I say that I agree with what Tribolite says about vocabulary, except that I'd use 'bitterly cold' in the first place—much more engaging, and everyone knows what it means. Tony 00:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That doesn't give a reader the option of learning a new word. The word gelid is used in context, so a person not familiar with the word can easily assume that it has something to do with the word cold. If we link to wiktionary, the meaning is just a click away. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:27, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

'Gelid' could very happily be relegated to the dustbin in English .... There are quite enough more common words that do duty for it. :-) Tony 08:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You'll have an 'extremely cold' dustbin somewhere. :D =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:28, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Support. Mark1 05:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)