Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ladakh

Ladakh
The article is comprehensive, informative and stable. It seems to meet all FA criteria. A good amount of literature and images are available with me to hopefully take care of any shortcomings found out during this candidature. deeptrivia (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment : On first glance, you have way too many images. Consider taking about half or more of them out. --Dark Kubrick 20:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've commented out a whole bunch of images. Reading the article should be more comfortable now. deeptrivia (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not completely sold on that the fact that you have at least 1 image in every section, and in most at least two. But it's better. (What does "commented out" mean?) --Dark Kubrick 21:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, it means that instead of deleting the text related to the image, I've made it into comments for now, so that it would be easier to put it back if it is desired to remove some other images instead of the ones I removed. Please feel free to remove other images you feel are unneccesary. deeptrivia (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to remove any images myself, as I have not read the article, and I don't want to mess it up by removing some image that vitally illustrates the text. I'm sure other users will give you better suggestions. -Dark Kubrick 22:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I still think you have a few too many images. I would think you would hardly need two pictures per section. Maybe take out one of the pics in Demographics and Flora and Fauna? -Dark Kubrick 19:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The demographics image was to fill the odd looking empty space besides the table. Anyway, the images are out now. deeptrivia (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Much better. I think the images are fixed for now, although others might object to it. Good job. --Dark Kubrick 21:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Object pending fixing these: the refs in the body (footnote numbers) should be immediately after the punctuation-not before it and not with a space in front of it and if more than one in a row, all adjacent with no spaces. I'd prefer to see the refs in cite php format, at a minimum they should be consistently formatted. For instance, for the web refs, some currently display the URL and some the title. Other than this, I think it's pretty good. Rlevse 00:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have fixed the concern raised regarding references positioning. However, I have similar concerns. The references beyond the ref#24 are incomplete. Also, Wikipedia/Wikitravel articles aren't considered as references. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * All references problems are now sorted out, including completeness. Material cited from other wiki pages has either been removed, or an alternate source is cited. deeptrivia (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made further changes in the number and size of images. Does that look okay now? deeptrivia (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you make the web ones cite php? Did some work to help on the refs for you. Rlevse 18:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what exactly that means, and how it's done. Can you do it once, and I'll follow the example with the rest? Thanks, deeptrivia (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * All references have been converted to cite php. deeptrivia (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Object Several problems exist:
 * 1) Trim the size from 47kb to 40kb.
 * 2) History The partition of India did not automatically give Ladakh to India. Only after Kashmir's accession did the area come to India, and that was after Pakistan's invasion. What effect has the Kashmir militancy had on Ladakh? What is the present status of the boundary dispute with China?
 * 3) The "Government and politics," "Economy," "Transport" sections should follow after "Flora and fauna." "Culture" should be the last, preceeded by "Demographics."
 * 4) "See also" section is necessary - along with Ladakh-related topics, place the GeoSouthAsia template there.
 * 5) "Notes and references" is wrong title - just "References" if the "Further reading" books have not served as references themselves.
 * 6) Copyediting please thoroughly check for spelling and grammar problems.  Rama's arrow  18:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) I'd like to know how the Shia Muslim and Buddhist populations get along in political, economic and communal issues. I'd like to see more data on the Shia Muslim population.  Rama's arrow  18:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment At this date, the article only has about 4,900 words, which is well below the maximum number suggested by Article size of 6,000-10,000. The use of tables and in-line php cites makes the old rule-of-thumb of looking at storage size misleading and thus of limited use.--Paul 04:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm looking into what I can do. Would probably need to split the Notes and references section into a Notes section and a References section to retain accuracy of title. Is there any other way? deeptrivia (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Objection to size of 47K is not a legit objection.Rlevse 12:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Size issues are part of FA criteria - I believe that the size can and should be reduced, although not by much. Rama's arrow  16:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No they're not. The word size doesn't even appear on the FAC criteria page. It only says "appropriate length" and how do you justify the arbitary size of 40K? Furthermore, how do you explain FAs on games over 100K? Rlevse 18:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Appropriate length" is all that needs to be said. 40kb is a good figure to aim for - obviously 43kb will not be a problem. I wrote a 69kb FA myself, but its tolerable only becoz the prose is ~ 40kb, and as long as there is valuable information that must not be removed. This article needs trimming - the more distant an article's size is from the 50kb-mark, the better. If there are 100kb FAs on "games," there had better be a good reason for it, for most people will not bother to read the article in completion. It is not advisable for any article to exceed 80kb - most will be a significant load on people's internet connections. Rama's arrow  21:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Often efforts to reduce size help editors slash repetitive info and long-winded sentences. This is a good way to copyedit an article. Rama's arrow  21:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you'd better talk to Raul654 because there are several FAs way over the length you consider appropriate, see Final Fantasy VII (92K) for one. Your decision on a 40K limit for this article is capricious and since you don't make the final decision, it's only your opinion.Rlevse 23:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * When did I claim to express anything but an opinion? There is nothing "capricious" about my comments - learn WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL before you make future comments. Rama's arrow  23:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Update
 * Trim the size from 47kb to 40kb.
 * A significant part of effort on this article since early June have gone into condensing the article, and several sections now are much shorter than previous versions. In any case, after your suggestion, I reduced the size further to 45kb, but the single act of replacing direct referencing with the cite php templates throughout the article took the size back to 50kb (I brought it down to 49kb again by removing some information.) In other words, I think a bulk of memory size in articles written in today's style goes into latent text that is invisible to the reader. (If I have 30 different references in an article, and I'm using a cite template with 10 fields, I all of a sudden add 300 extra words (fieldnames) to my article that are invisible to the reader.) The total visible text in this article is 38kb (including references.) I agree it still puts a load on internet connections, but well, a single decent image is going to be around 500 kb by itself.)


 * History The partition of India did not automatically give Ladakh to India. Only after Kashmir's accession did the area come to India, and that was after Pakistan's invasion. What effect has the Kashmir militancy had on Ladakh? What is the present status of the boundary dispute with China?


 * I've now added some information regarding this in the history section.


 * The "Government and politics," "Economy," "Transport" sections should follow after "Flora and fauna." "Culture" should be the last, preceeded by "Demographics."


 * I've made this change.
 * "See also" section is necessary - along with Ladakh-related topics, place the GeoSouthAsia template there.


 * Added the section.
 * "Notes and references" is wrong title - just "References" if the "Further reading" books have not served as references themselves.


 * Split the section to have a separate notes section.


 * Copyediting please thoroughly check for spelling and grammar problems. [[User:Rama's Arrow| '''Rama's

arrow''' ]] 18:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Corrected whatever I could spot.


 * I'd like to know how the Shia Muslim and Buddhist populations get along in political, economic and communal issues. I'd like to see more data on the Shia Muslim population. Rama's arrow  18:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added some more information regarding this in the Government and Politics section. deeptrivia (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I would not like to object for that, but it should be swiftly fixed: In the notes it is nice you've used the Greek alphabet, but the order is absolutely wrong! First, the symbol for 6 (sixth note) is not σ but either (στ) or stigma (Ϛ). Then, η is before κ. Μ is absolutely wrong! After ι is ια not ιβ! Is there any reason for this mess that I miss? If you have no objection, I can edit and fix it for you. But I donot want to spoil your work and undo something that it seems to me wrong, but it has a reasoning I donot understand.--Yannismarou 15:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I fixed the notes. I think it's OK now. But just check for sure. So, I support.--Yannismarou 07:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support the heated exchange with Rlevse has given the impression that I am a "sizist" or something - I absolutely am not. I often find it frustrating to contain size in FAs myself, but one has to make an effort to assure that the article is of an acceptable length - thru this way it benefits by helping extricate repetitive info and copyediting, making the article a simpler, better read. However, you (Deeptrivia) did a fine job in addressing all other points. Rama's arrow  12:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Mr Tan 13:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * comment footnotes are not proper, as Rlevse has pointed out. Still there are instances where there is a space between the punctuation mark and the footnote number.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Have done some copyedits to properly place footnotes. Also some copyedit for formatting units, ndash, wikilinking etc. Please see if I missed something.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments: Needs a copyedit. Many examples of choppy prose such as: The council has put forth ... and Baltistan (ends as an anticlimax). Proper nouns need to be wikified and stubbed: eg Phugthal, Sani, Stongdey, Shyok Valley, Sankoo, Salt Valley. Fill all such red to make it look neater. said to be the highest fields in the world. -- weasel terms, needs a reference. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've done some edits fixing some references, making a bunch of more stubs, providing references, fixing some language, etc. About the weasel words used for describing Karzok fields to be the highest, I have at least three reputable references on that, but all use weasel words "said to be", "considered", etc. I guess we'll have to live with this language in this instance. However, according to Wikipedia guidelines on weasel words, providing sources, as I've done should be considered an improvement. If there are other problems like these, let me know. deeptrivia (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Recent history seems to be absent 1947-2006. Also what could be added is the rise in narcotic trading in the area. I've also embedded comments in the text. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Recent history is covered in the politics section. I have now, however, added a summary of it to the history section. I've also taken care of the inline comments. About narcotics trading, I couldn't find much information. Is this a significant issue? I've read about the Karakoram highway between Pakistani and Chinese administered territories being used for narcotics smuggling between those to countries, but nothing about Ladakh. It would be very interesting if it's significant, since in the present situation (with Tibet borders closed), Ladakh doesn't lie on any trade routes, and the army closely watches the only two highways to access the region. deeptrivia (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Are there any other suggestions/objections? deeptrivia (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sex ratio should be defined, and linked to; the article appears to be using men per thousand women, but should say so - and if it is not, it must say so, to avoid misleading the reader. Septentrionalis 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's the usual females per 1000 males definition. I've linked sex ratio and provided a note. deeptrivia (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Good enough to be a Featured Article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. I was pleased with the first two paragraphs of the lead, but then I found problems.
 * "borders into Tibet and Central Asia in the 1960,"—"with", not "into", which indicates motion. "1960s".
 * " Since 1974, the Indian Government encouraged tourism in Ladakh."—"has encouraged".
 * "The largest town of Ladakh"—nope: "in".
 * "A majority of Ladakhis are Tibetan Buddhist, with most of the rest being Shia Muslims." Pluralise "Buddhist". "With" is a poor link-word. Try "... are Tibetan Buddhists; most other Lahakhis are Shia Muslims". Easier to read?
 * "in recent times"—code for just "recently". But redundancy here is overtaken by the need for precise info, not vague chronological notions. Since when? Later in the sentence, "its" is ambiguous.

The article needs copy-editing before it can be called "professional". Tony 06:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've done a copyedit. Is it better or worse? &mdash; Ravikiran 20:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ravikiran: thanks for implementing my suggestions above, and for making some nice improvements. But more of that is required throughout. If this is to be a FA, I shouldn't be able to easily spot things such as:
 * "In early 17th century" (the). Also, consider inserting a comma after a sentence-initial preposition or adverbial phrase; it's not mandatory, though.
 * "eventually making Ladakh a country inhabited by a mixed population, predominantly Tibetan". This is unidiomatic, or is it a matter of logic - "making" is too forceful and/or implies a direct agent, rather than a characteristic that just arose because of the movement of people. "Thus, the population of Ladakh became ethnically and linguistically mixed, predominantly by Tibetans." or something like that? And the next sentence:
 * "The dynasty spearheaded the "Second Spreading of Buddhism" importing religious ideas from north-west India, particularly from Kashmir". "Spearheaded" is kind of modern and extreme, so maybe just "prompted"? Comma before "importing" almost mandatory. "Northwest". Remove the second "from".
 * "During Islamic conquest of South Asia around the 13th century". No, "the Islamic ...". Can you be more definite about when this occurred?

Well, that's from one small section, and it seems that just about every sentence needs massaging. It's such an interesting topic, so where are your colleagues? (There are several good Indian copy-editors hiding on WP.) Setting several of them on it might do the trick.

I am copyediting the article section by section. As and when I find sentences that need someone who knows about the topic, I will add them here with my doubts. &mdash; Ravikiran 07:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ravikiran's comments

History
 * "Neolithic rock carvings have been found in many parts of Ladakh, showing that the area has been inhabited from early times." &mdash; "Early times"  is vague. Can it be replaced by at least the millennium since when it has been inhabited?
 * "Some descriptions are also available in the accounts of the 7th century Buddhist traveler Hsuan-tsang". &mdash; The "also" is redundant as no other description has been mentioned. But more importantly, some descriptions of what? The advent of Buddhism or the practice of Buddhism?
 * "In the 8th century, Ladakh was involved in the clash between Tibetan expansion pressing from the East and Chinese influence exerted from Central Asia through the passes." &mdash; and then what happened? Did it come under Tibetan rule? The next sentance suggests that. But adding a line to that effect wouldn't hurt.
 * "Ladakh sided with Bhutan in its dispute with Tibet,..." &mdash; When? The context suggests that it was in the mid-seventeenth century.

Government
 * "The Ladakh Union Territory Front (LUTF) still demands union territory status for Ladakh. However, this is opposed by the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, which supports trifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir. According to the Kargil Autonomous Hill Development Council, LUTF's demand for UT status is confined to Leh district only. The council has instead put forth the demand for a Greater Ladakh which would include Gilgit, Skardu and Baltistan." &mdash; This is confusing. Doesn't "trifurcation" also mean that they do want UT status for Ladakh after all? How did the "Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council" in the second sentence change to "Kargil Autonomous Hill Development Council" in the third? Is Greater Ladakh also supposed to be a UT?

Culture
 * "...the elders of a family, as soon as the eldest son has reached years of discretion". What exactly is "years of discretion"?

I am trying to fix the above problems. Having read the sources in more detail, I don't think I'll be very effective in finding passages in this article that are unclear to someone who's been presented just this article, but I could (hopefully) easily add information to clarify any ambiguities. So with more fresh minds looking into the article, and pointing out problems, we should be able to improve the prose. deeptrivia (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made changes to clarify the above ambiguities. I'm sure there must be some more. We'll probably need more reviewers to point them out. I'll be willing to fix them up. Thanks. deeptrivia (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just wanted to tell you that I was fascinated by the place when I read the article, and that is what prompted me to go copyedit it. Support for FA. &mdash; Ravikiran 18:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - Its a great effort. Took me a while to finish reading the article -- Lost (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support All the constructive comments and work have made this FA material. Very interesting too. Sumoeagle179 12:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support  Very interesting article about an interesting place. Kudos.  Mark my vote as support when on going copy-edits are finished.--Blacksun 15:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We're not voting here, and it's not a numbers game; it's a process of gaining consensus. Tony 09:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And my opinion is that the article is FA material once the copyedit suggestions made by you are taken care of. Whats your point? --Blacksun 00:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My point is that you referred to "voting"; that would be appropriate at RfA, where it is a vote, but not here. Tony 01:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Try to take things in context once in a while. I can write you a written apology if you like for using the word "vote" by mistake.  Sometimes, I am busy and make slips like that.  Anyways, enough time wasted on this line of thought.  --Blacksun 20:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment 
 * In the first paragraph "Lahoul" is mentioned first, then "Lahul" is mentioned. Are these same? Jankit 00:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Several transliterations are common. Now, I've changed both of them to "Lahaul", because that's the spelling on the district's official website, http://hplahaulspiti.nic.in/ . deeptrivia (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's quite good, nice work, but I can't support until a few relatively easy to fix things are taken care of. One is that the languages spoken and understood are not given enough coverage relative to some other topics which are probably given more coverage than their importance dictates. And the demographics section seems like the more fitting place to cover the languages. It should be one solid paragraph telling the approximate numbers or percentages of speakers of the main languages and what scripts are in most common use. What language are government services conducted in, most media, etc. Second is there are very short orphan paragraphs throughout which either need to be merged with related material, expanded, or removed. It looks like you've got some great sources, and everything I can think an article like this would need is there. Perhaps the geography section could be renamed geography and climate to reflect it's contents. - Taxman Talk 17:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll try to fix all of this tonight. deeptrivia (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have reorganized some paragraphs to have some uniformity in their size, and have added some more content about languages and scripts. I have also moved it to the demographics section. I am confident that no information about percentage of speakers of languages in Ladakh exists. Last census conducted after 20 years does not provide such information, nor do any of the books I have on the subject. It would have been possible to estimate this if we at least knew the population of various nomadic groups and their dialects, but this information has never been collected either. Ladakhi is not even an official language. Climate is a subject matter of geography, just like geology, so it has not been explicitly mentioned. deeptrivia (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Much better. I see your point on the geography, and if there simply is no information on the language distribution so be it. I was just about ready to support when I realized there is nothing on communications, media, or other technology infrastructure in the article. Maybe it's not widespread enough that it couldn't be covered in a small section, but it needs something. How is phone service, access to computers, etc. Sorry I just noticed this. - Taxman Talk 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I know some things about internet, telephones, etc. from personal experience, but I don't have any sources yet. There are no contentious facts that can be disputed, though. Airtel is the sole provider of mobile phones, and the service is available only in Leh. Internet too, is available only in Leh, and is very expensive compared to rest of India (Rs. 2/min). Cable television is available and popular in Leh. As far as villages are concerned, most of them have no modern communications facilities. Even Lamayuru, very popular with tourists for its monastery doesn't have a single telephone. There are all these bits I know, but haven't found any sources to cite yet. Will be looking for them.deeptrivia (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)