Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hyderabad, India/archive6


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC).

Hyderabad, India

 * Nominator(s): Omer123hussain (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I am re-nominating this article for featured article because; after a positive review in last FAC it was not attended by other reviewers and was archive-5, currently its a Good article and peer reviewed for twice along with the comprehensive contribution by and. The article is about a heritage and traditional city, also known for its historical Bazaars and modern economical growth. Omer123hussain (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment – Has one of the delegates given the green light for this nomination? The last nomination was only closed just over a day ago, and at the bottom (see Featured article candidates/Hyderabad, India/archive5) states "Because it hasn't generated much comment, you can re-nominate before the usual 2-week period following the archiving if you choose to. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)" It hasn't been two weeks. – Shudde  talk 12:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, I have re-nominated because the archive summary says "before the usual 2-week period following the archiving", so hoped we may get some reviewers, and its not worthy to wait until the end of 2 weeks. Earlier nomination was archived because, the article got only one reviewer and since last two weeks it was not attended by any other reviewer. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Shudde, I presumed that the delegate's closing comment in the previous fac was a green signal itself. So I encouraged Omer to go ahead and re-nominate. Did we need to explicitly ask the delegate for permission to re-nominate?--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to ask, Ian gave his permission. Graham Colm (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry completely misread that! I shouldn't edit to late at night think. - Shudde  talk 10:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles looks to be close to FA quality. Not happy with the sourcing though. I hate bloated text in the references like 157 176. You should put those in note format, see Nostradamus for example.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  16:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. (They are now FNN 139 & 158). These are very long quotations from the sources, both of which are available online without a subscription. I suggest deleting the quotations completely. --Stfg (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done Thanks for both of your advices. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding the EFNs isn't a good idea. The effect of that is to keep the quotations but separate them from their attribution. We don't need the quotations at all, because we can access them from the sources. The way you had it two edits ago (which I've restored) was best, imo. --Stfg (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood your point. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Does the historical component occupy rather too large a role in the lead compared with the main text of the article?
 * We reduced the main text from the history section due to article size, probably thats why the text in the lead remain large. The summarized text in the lead is essential because the city had been center of south Indian politics, which still continues with the Telengana issues. Please advice :)


 * Not sold on the religion table: does it make the proportions easier to understand?
 * Removed religion table.


 * Below the poverty line.
 * Done.


 * "A third of the slums have basic service connections and 90% have water supply lines." Isn't water a basic service connection?
 * Done with some changes.--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "18% are very poor, with an income of 20,000 (US$340) per annum"—what, exactly 20,000? Or up to?
 * Wikilink "very poor" as Below Poverty Line (India), and 20,000 is attached with Indian Rupee symbol ₹, we keep that symbol to avoid repetation of "Indian Rupee". Hope it served the purpose.
 * That's not what Tony asked. He was referring to the use of "income of 20,000" as an absolute number; what we wanted to say in the article was income of 20,000 or less, and that meaning was not evident in the earlier construction. Now, it has been changed to "up to", as sugegsted by Tony.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting me :)


 * Caption: "Optimist and Laser dinghies are sailed during the Hyderabad Sailing Week Regatta at Hussain Sagar"—could "are sailed" be removed?
 * Done.


 * "The Charminar, Mecca Masjid, Charkaman and Qutb Shahi Tombs are other existing structures of this period; among these the Charminar has become an icon of the city. Located in the centre of old Hyderabad, it is a square structure with sides 20 metres (66 ft) long and four grand arches each facing a road."—Could you switch around the semicolon and the subsequent period?
 * Done. This was an excellent catch!--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Who invented this way of doing ref tags? [107]:16–17[111][112] ... it's a bit disruptive with page numbers, don't you think?
 * It seems so. This was done using the rp template, which is used when the same source (but different page/page ranges) are used multiple times. What could be a solution?--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Per MOSNUM, no space between $ and the value.
 * Done.--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Lit and music sections: could you check for opportunities to paragraph? Maybe they're too cohesive to allow it—I didn't read them properly.
 * Sorry but I could not catch what exactly you are advicing here. May you plase be more specific. Sometime I am poor to understand western style of english communication.--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What Tony meant was the literature and music subsections are large single paragraphs. If possible, can those subsections be split into two or more paragraphs? --Dwaipayan (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your specifications, splited into two paragraphs. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Cuisine section seems weak and short. It couldn't be trimmed and tacked onto another section, could it? How much of these features are not unique to the city?
 * It is possible to merge the section with the opening paragraphs (unnamed) of culture section. However, Hyderabadi cuisine is a well-known subset of Indian cuisine, and we thought it deserves a separate sub-section. The content of this section is pretty much unique to the city. The common parts (the usual Indian cuisine) is not discussed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Cricket"—no cap, please.
 * Done


 * The top pic in "Transport"—could be from any city in the subcontinent, yes? I'd prefer larger images, and perhaps fewer. I've enlarged a few of the beautifully detail-rich pics already. I hope you don't mind.
 * Yes, that traffic jam of auto-rickshaws could be from any city of the subcontinent. However, not every image could be unique to Hyderabad, as it shares many characteristics with other cities. That being said, I have no sense of photographs, and hence, cannot say about its quality. If you think it is of low quality, we can surely remove it.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I replaced the image with the map that represents the city streets, connecting the IRR along with ORR. This will also solve the issue of street map, as said below. Hope its correct. --Omer123hussain (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sister cities—oh please. This is a free trip for privileged politicians and a pretty empty concept all over the world. We have national flags, a table ...?
 * I personally agree with removing the sister-city list. Are you suggesting to remove it?--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree to remove.
 * Removed the table.


 * The street map: meaningless even when enlarged as I've done. I wonder whether it could be centred and put to 450px or more? But this may not be suitable to your plan. I'm concerned that users with poor connections will find it hard to access the original size if they click (and many readers won't know they can click).
 * It was adviced in earlier FAC to keep one map as a tradition of wp FA articles. Please advice if we shall remove it or continue ? :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed the map and added a street map in section "Transport" that represents the city streets, connecting the IRR along with ORR.

Overall, promising. Nice work. Tony  (talk)  14:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review, will try to attend the remaining advices by tomorrow evening. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Omer, I do hope you're planning on continuing your good work on India-related articles. They're in critical need of improvement, given the size of the potential readership. A few more things: "With the invention of railways in the 1880s—do you mean "introduction"? Weren't railways invented in the early 19th century? I changed it, but can you check? That large caption could be trimmed if it's partly dealt with in the main text; and are the four factories shown in the pic? From the late 18th century on . The airport is odd listed as being established from the late 19th century—in fact, that list could be introduced by "During the early 20th century"?. "Topography" section (and elsewhere?), can you go with imperial or metrics as main units, not both? Doesn't India use the metric system? Tony   (talk)  03:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right it should be "introduction" of railways, will trimm and shift the text in the main section in suitable sentences.
 * Will request Dwaip to attend the metric system advice. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, India uses metric units. I have changed the two instances in topography section where imperial units were used as primary unit. I think that was an error, because the article uses metric units as the primary unit. I did not catch any other deviation from that.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Review by Quadell
This article is well-written, clear, and reasonably complete. It's full of high-quality free images, and every important statement is sourced. Still, there are numerous problems, mostly involved with details of images and formatting. There is one remaining problem with an image, and several problems with sources. – Quadell (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Images. There were numerous minor problems with the image description pages that I fixed, and I even moved File:Hyderabad Town Hall.jpg to Commons. But the following image issues remain.
 * For File:Hyderabad Airport.jpg, it appears the version given as the source and reviewed by FlickreviewR is not the current version of the image.
 * Removed image.


 * File:Mah Laqa Bai Maqbara.jpg has two license tags and flikr-review notices, for no discernable reason.
 * Replaced with another structure.


 * File:Hyderabad mills.jpg is claimed to be PD in countries "where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or less", but there is no information about when the author Deen Dayal died.
 * Updated authors dato of death in image.


 * File:Jummat-ul-wida.jpg has not been human-reviewed or categorized on Commons.
 * Replaced the image with all properties.


 * After my previous image review, one image was replaced with File:Falaknuma 1900.jpg. Unfortunately, this image also has a problem. It claims that the author (photographer) died more than 100 years ago, but the author is unknown. Since the photo was taken in 1900, it is certainly possible that he was still alive in 1914. So the tag is wrong, and needs to be fixed. (The image is legitimately PD in both the U.S. and India, and can be used; it just needs to be correctly tagged.)
 * Fixed (replaced the image). --Omer123hussain (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The new image is fine. The old one would have been fine, too, if correctly tagged.


 * Sources.
 * I agree with Tony that the footnote-colon-pagenumber formatting (e.g. [50]:93) is distracting. See the systems used at Clemuel Ricketts Mansion, Pisco Sour, Myotis escalerai, or any other FA.
 * Hi. The problem is converting to any other system would mean a total overhaul. In this article, we have not used a seperate "bibliography" section; the styles you mentioned use a seperate bibliography, and then use sfn template or no templates. I personally have the experience of using such method (for example, in Mother India). It looks significantly better.
 * However, this article uses another templete, rp. That is an acceptable alternative, per MoS. Of course we do have our individual preferences, but I find this artricle follows MoS in this regard. Changing the style would involve huge amount of time. That being said, I am not the main contributor to the article. If Omer thinks he has the time to overhaul the whole reference system, he can; but I strongly believe that would be a waste of time.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, - I suggest, if it is acceptable as per Mos, then we shall move with rp template, any way those are hardly used in 20-30 places. But if it is should and must to remove to meet FA status, we will remove it. Please advice. --Omer123hussain (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand reference #2. Why are the four publications (dated 1959, 1996, 2005, and 1996) subheaded under McCann (1994)? Similar question for footnotes, 8, 17, 18, etc. Do multiple sources support the same statement? If so, a hierarchy should not be implied; instead, this can be handled by multiple footnotes. Alternatively, if the sources were separated from the references as in Myotis escalerai, you could handle this situation as in footnotes 7 and 21 in Myotis escalerai.
 * Well, earlier those were individual footnotes. However, during one of the FACs (or may be peer reviews), some editors suggested bundling of footnotes wherever possible. If we do not bundle the footnotes, the sentence would have five footnote superscripts. So, for the sake of easy reading, editors suggested to bundle if possible (when multiple sources support the same statement, or, same theme).
 * Your suggested methods are great alternatives, and aesthetically soothing. However, the method used in this article is an acceptable alternative.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Footnote 131 seems like broken formatting.
 * Fixed.
 * In my opinion, there is no reason to link to the Google Books entry for a title (e.g. "Concise dictionary of world place names" in footnote 1) when there is already an ISBN that can take you to Google Books or any other provider of information for the source. You should only link the title when the actual text is available online, but this is not the case for the linked titles in many of the footnotes.
 * Fixed

Comment from Stfg (source page numbers)

The recent change away from using Template:rp for page numbers has led to multiple errors. for example, in the Transport section, we had
 * ... roads occupy only 9.5% of the total city area,

and this has now been changed to
 * ... roads occupy only 9.5% of the total city area,

This doesn't work, because ref name="Wba ci rep" has previously been declared to refer to page 93. Indeed, if you follow the link to FN51 here, it takes you to a reference to page 93. Page 79 has been lost altogether.

When we have references to several different pages of a source, the only ways to cope with it are: (a) use short footnotes, (b) have a separate ref (with a separate name, if named at all) for each page number referenced, or (c) use rp. It is impossible to solve it with a simple mechanical change like this morning's. Any change from one of the above three options to any of the others is inevitably a major piece of work.

I have to ask: are there solid, documented grounds, for example in the MOS, to object to this use of template:rp, or are we dealing here with a question of mere personal taste? --Stfg (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(Perhaps I should have added that the above remark is in the context that WP:CITE seems to explicitly endorse the RP method. --Stfg (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Unless someone with more experience in FACs chimes in to tell me otherwise, I think I've come to the conclusion that my dislike of the rp format is just my own (strong) preference, and not a valid reason to object. I'll revisit my review above in light of that. – Quadell (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I also concur that the recent changes described above, while intended to improve the formatting, have in fact stopped the footnotes from functioning. I'll see what I can do. – Quadell (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have now changed the references in the article back to the previously used (and functional) RP syntax. – Quadell (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Quadell. --Stfg (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(I concede that using RP format, while unappealing to this reviewer, is fully in line with out MOS. Similarly, the use of a headed list of citations, as in reference #2, looks misleading to me, and few other FAs use it. However, it is acceptable according to CITESHORT. These objections have been withdrawn.)


 * There are a few nitpicky problems with the image captions. Every caption needs to be either (a) a complete sentence, or several complete sentences, with correct punctuation and grammar, or (b) a noun phrase that does not end in a period.
 * "A mill with a canal connecting to Hussain Sagar lake." is not a sentence. Either turn that fragment into a complete sentence, or rewrite the caption another way.
 * Please could we check the MOS on this one. That noun phrase is followed by a complete sentence, and my understanding of MOS:CAPTION, where it says "If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, all sentences and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period", is that it allows captions of this kind. --Stfg (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I don't like it, but you're right. (I learn more details about the MoS by doing these reviews!) – Quadell (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Falaknuma palace constructed by the Paigah noble, the palace is inspired by Andrea Palladio villas" needs proper grammar as either a full sentence or a noun phrase.
 * Changed to "The Falaknuma palace, constructed by the Paigah family, was inspired by Andrea Palladio's villas." --Stfg (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "A clickable map representing the Intermediate Ring Road that connects the Inner Ring Road with the Outer Ring Road." either needs the period removed, or needs to be converted to a complete sentence.
 * Period (and intial article) removed. --Stfg (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't find much room for improvement in the prose. Well done.

Spotchecks by Quadell

I did a very thorough review of sources for statements in this article. (Late update: I should specify that all footnote numbers refer to this version.) For most cites I checked, the statement is fully supported by the source or sources, and is reworded without plagiarism. These include footnotes 5, 6, 23, 52b and c, 67, 75, 94, 105, 123, 126, 143, 148, 160, 173, 192, 206, 226, and 234. However, the following footnotes have potential problems:


 * 22: The first sentence "The Constitution of India, which became effective on 26 January 1950, made Hyderabad State one of the part B states of India, with Hyderabad City continuing to be the capital." is not supported by the source, nor is it found in the sites for reference 23. It needs a correct source. (The second sentence, "In his 1955 report...", is supported by the source.)
 * Fixed.
 * Fine. I cleaned it up a little further. – Quadell (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 47: The link appears to be dead. It's a rather important source, listed as the only cite for 4 long sentences regarding the GHMC. Is there a source that can replace it?
 * Replaced with a live URL.
 * The new link seems to support all those statements. – Quadell (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 52a: The source mentions the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, but does not mention military camps.
 * Fixed --Omer123hussain (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 90: The source does not mention a connection between English and white-collar workers.
 * Removed mention of white collar workers.
 * That was probably the best way to deal with it. – Quadell (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 137: The first reference (a) specifies page 9, which is correct. The second (b) does not specify a page number, but it should specify page 25. The full listing of the source says "pp. 9–25", which isn't necessary, since each cite should list the page number. In both cases, the facts were present in the source, without no problems.
 * Fixed.


 * 183: The claim that "the major Urdu papers include The Siasat Daily, The Munsif Daily and Etemaad" is not in the source, and needs a correct source.
 * Fixed.


 * 202: I couldn't find any mention of the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India at that source. Did I miss it?
 * Indeed we may chose not to give a reference to this at all. This is not a controversial thing, and can be supported if challenged.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually found a source from Jawaharlal Nehru University that lists the institutes in that sentence and the next, and I've updated the article accordingly.


 * 216: I can only find Shabbir Ali mentioned at that site. The ten other sportspeople from Hyderabad are not sourced.
 * We had wikilinked the sport persons names, and removed the citations as they were bulk. If it is necessary we will apply those please advise. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Support, I am content. – Quadell (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Support (as last time) - the article looks lighter and more polished now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments. I think this is excellent, and much improved over the last couple of years. i have a couple of minor points:
 * "On 1 November 1956 the states of India were reorganised by language group. Hyderabad state was split into three parts, the modern states of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. The nine Telugu- and Urdu-speaking districts of Hyderabad state that make up the Telangana region were merged with the Telugu-speaking Andhra State to create Andhra Pradesh". This is a important bit of modern Indian history, but the citation for this sentence is pretty obscure and not political history. Can a stronger citation be found for the notion that the reorganisation was language-based? Eg. what do Ramachandra Guha or Stanley Wolpert say?
 * Hi, thanks for your update, Fixed the above point.(applied additional citations).


 * "communal tension and riots..." 'Communal' has a particular meaning in the context of the subcontinent, and wonder if an appropriate link can be identified, perhaps Religious violence in India.
 * Fixed


 * There appears to be no information on the general size or scale of Hyderabad prior to the 1971 population figure in the demographics section. Is nothing historical available?
 * Good point, will try to find such with reliable source. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Could not find any citiation online, will be thankful if some one could help us in this matter. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In a not-so-extensive search, I also failed to locate anything, except a graph that approximately showed the population growth of the city. The graph is at page 13 of this document.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If there's nothing to be found, then there's nothing to be done. It would be good if we knew what the source for that graph was, but i don't think it is enough on its own. I had a quick look in Guha's India After Gandhi, but it only has a population figure for Hyderabad state in the 1940s (16 million).hamiltonstone (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed (find one and applied book source, but it does not have ISBN ? ) and added census of 1951 and 1961, hope it works. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic article and just about ready to support. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Yep, significantly improved, happy to support now, well done to all involved!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  19:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments
 * I'd expect to see all paragraphs ending with citations -- some under Neighbourhood, Culture, and Education do not.
 * You have a few duplicate links; some may be justified because of the article's length but pls review using this script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have done so and have removed all duplicate links detected except for a duplication of Karnataka, because the two links to it were quite far apart and the second, being in the Art and handicraft section, may be quite useful. --Stfg (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed paragraphs to end with citations. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.