Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mangalore/archive3

Mangalore

 * Nominator(s): Aviator423 (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Mangalore was a Featured Article in Wikipedia from 2008 to 2018. It was de-listed from FAC in 2018. In January 2020, a Featured Article review was done and the article didn't get promoted. Thereafter, it has been nominated and listed as a Good Article. FAC copyediting by GOCE is also done for this article.

I have listed the article as a Featured Article Candidate. Aviator423 (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggest withdrawal Comment by Fowler&fowler
The latter two-thirds of the article is a sea of blue links, lacking both descriptive and narrative prose. It is a list. I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is a nonstarter. I don't need to cite chapter and verse. I recommend withdrawing the article, examining its history, examining what it looked like in 2008 when it became an FA, and removing at least half the links, maybe two thirds. Only then will you be able to create room for prose, for its phrases, clauses, and adjuncts. Best regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If the link exists for that particular page, then it is added. It is the crux of the World Wide Web. Then why do Wikipedia and Google take the number of links into consideration? For your information, I am a PhD in Computer Science with summa cum laude. The latter two-thirds of the article comprise the comprehensive prose for Economy, Education, Transport, Culture, Sports and pastimes, Media and Tourism.
 * There is years of effort in composing the prose and narrative of this article. Are you are only interested in the colour "blue"? The 2008 version of the article had many blue links and even red links too? Now will you say that broken links were added to that 2008 Featured Article?


 * If Wikipedia doesn't encourage adding links to a page, then why are WP:Building the web and WP:Orphan very important?
 * I am very sorry Mr. Fowler&fowler, but your analysis is very shallow, and is demeaning the efforts made by all the Editors including the Copy-Editors to this page.


 * The review hasn't even started, and Mr. Fowler&fowler is suggesting withdrawal. Here is the page version he is talking about:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mangalore&oldid=941315961
 * Aviator423 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. I am no longer opposing the article.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria
Oppose, suggest withdrawal - I appreciate the effort that has gone into this article. However, unfortunately I do not feel it meets the current iteration of the featured article criteria. Specifically:
 * 1a (prose): particularly in the later sections the prose is very listy, and at times repetitive. There are some grammatical errors and also inconsistency in what variety of English is used - for example the article contains both "program" and "programme".
 * There was 1 occurrence of inconsistency. It is resolved. I don't think that the latter sections are listy. For the Education section, the earliest institutes are mentioned. As far as repetitive is concerned, Pilikula is mentioned in both Sports and Tourism sections, since it has a Golf course in addition to being a tourism destination. I don't agree with the terms 'listy' and 'repetitive'. Aviator423 (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I provided one example, but it's not the only occurrence. Here's another example showing both inconsistency and repetitiveness: "In 2006, a Tulu film festival was organised in Mangalore.[290] Tulu Cinemotsava 2015 was organized in January 2015". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That statement is rewritten as "Mangalore hosted the Tulu film festivals in 2006 and 2015". The issue is fixed. Aviator423 (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 1b (comprehensiveness): the article is missing discussion of healthcare, and the contemporary history section is quite abbreviated.
 * Contemporary history section has been updated. It is already a lengthy article. Is a healthcare section really needed? Do you need another point to mention the healthcare section also as listy? Aviator423 (talk)
 * It should be possible to write such a section without being listy, and I do think it's needed, particularly given that the lead identifies the city as a healthcare "hub" without any corresponding content in the body. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added some statements related to Healthcare in the Economy section . Will create a section for Healthcare, when more statements are included. I will be working on adding more statements. Kindly let me know about any changes or suggestions. Please provide me some time to further enhance the Healthcare content. Aviator423 (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done - A section for Healthcare is created within the Government and public services section. Please let me know your suggestions. Aviator423 (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 1c (sourcing): some of the sources used are of questionable reliability, such as bharathautos.com. There are also theses that do not have sufficient information provided to assess whether they meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
 * There is no such source - bharathautos.com. I don't know what you are talking about. Also those theses sources have been removed from the article. Aviator423 (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That source is footnote 208 - it is difficult to identify at a glance since the citation is incomplete. As to the theses, the guidelines around sourcing have changed significantly since 2008. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Replaced bharathautos.com with a new reliable source. I am working on the addition of authors. Authors have been added to the first 270 news citations. Will try to complete them soon. Aviator423 (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done The changes have been made. Please confirm if any modifications are necessary. Aviator423 (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 2 (style): the article is not consistent with the Manual of Style, for example in repeating wikilinks.
 * The repeating links are removed. Aviator423 (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * They haven't been - for example Pandyan Kingdom is linked twice from the same paragraph in Etymology. And again, that was an example only. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pandyan Kingdom update is done. Aviator423 (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done - Kindly confirm if it's fine. I'll make further changes based on your suggestions. Aviator423 (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 2c (citation formatting): citations are inconsistently and often incorrectly formatted, and some do not have sufficient information to accurately identify the source.
 * If you are referring to the formatting of newspaper citations, then that issue is resolved. Be specific about the statement "citations do not have sufficient information to accurately identify the source". Aviator423 (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources that have a named author should include the author's name in the citation - for example FNs 6, 14, 34, etc. Web sources should include website or publisher name - missing for example in FN17. Publication location for books is optional but if it's to be included it should be done consistently - for example you include it in FN22 but not in FN23. Etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are around 250 to 300 newspaper citations in the article. Adding an author to almost each one of them will take some time. I request you to please co-operate with the time. Aviator423 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done - The citation changes have been made. Please verify and suggest if further changes are needed. Aviator423 (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: There is absolutely no yardstick involved in the Featured Article reviews. Any editor on any given day can come and say 'suggest withdrawal', 'oppose', 'support' or 'comment'. Articles with 100 odd corrections can be supported in FA review, but articles with 5-6 corrections can be withdrawn ! PR tactics matter a lot in FA reviews !
 * Aviator423 (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I base my commentary in FACs on my own assessment with regards to WP:WIAFA, which is the yardstick against which articles are meant to be assessed - not the specific number of corrections needed nor how good the article's "PR". If you feel my assessment is incorrect, state your case and allow the to gauge whether my comments constitute an actionable oppose or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note for others looking at this discussion: please be aware that some of the nominator's comments were changed after I had replied to them, please refer to history for the state of the page at the time of my responses. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose from John M Wolfson
I apologize greatly for this and I know it's not fun to have your FAC opposed like this, but I had a bit of a hard time reading this article. I don't think the prose is to FA standards and think that a thorough copyedit is in order. Here are some more comments; none of these would be fatal to an FAC on their own but this is not exhaustive and dealing with them is not enough for me to strike my oppose. I also respectfully suggest withdrawal for this and refer you to the Guild of Copyediting.
 * The article has been copyedited by the Guild of Copyediting this month for FAC. Check this link
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests/Archives/2020
 * Aviator423 (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That is fair enough; I still do not think that copyedit is adequate, but I do appreciate your work. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The entire C/E editing phase by the Guild of Copy Editors took nearly 7 days, with over 90 edits to the article. Adequate and substantial amount of copyediting has already been done. Aviator423 (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * officially known as Mangaluru, I assume this was officially changed at some point like Mumbai, Chennai, and Bengaluru, but the article makes no mention of it.
 * Changes are done. It is now mentioned and cited in the article. Aviator423 (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Ptolemy's and Pliny the Elder's Just say "These".
 * I've made the change. Aviator423 (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Why is it at times the full "kilometres" but the abbreviated "mi"?
 * There was only 1 occurrence and it was in the Utility services sub-section. Changed and made uniform with the other statements that all include km. Aviator423 (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Mphasis BPO. What does "BPO" stand for?
 * BPO stands for Business Process Outsourcing. Aviator423 (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The New Mangalore Port Is it officially called the "New Mangalore Port"? Otherwise it shouldn't be capitalized.
 * Yes, it's officially called "New Mangalore Port". Aviator423 (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The city generates 175 tons per day of waste I assume this means the metric tonnes, but several imperial units are also called "tons" and this doesn't describe which unit is meant.
 * Yes it is tonnes. The change has been done in the article. The cited source uses the American English spelling, while the article makes use of the British English spellings. Aviator423 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * As said above by Nikkimaria, DUPLINKs are bad form.
 * Duplicate links have been removed. Aviator423 (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I intend to take WikiCup points for this review. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd like to start by saying that Mr. Rose is correct, in that it is not best practice to spend a significant amount of time on an FAC after it's been opposed and withdrawal suggested when the article has little support. Nevertheless, I do commend your dedication to the article. Unfortunately, I still don't think that the article passes FA standards in its current form, and must therefore maintain my oppose. Here is but a sample:
 * Karnataka, etc., should probably be linked at their first mention in the lead (and, per DUPLINKS, no more).
 * I have made your suggested change. Aviator423 (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * the state's only city to have all four modes of transport—air, road, rail and sea. should be rewritten, and is not (as far as I could see) explicitly mentioned in the body.
 * I have made your suggested change. Aviator423 (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * according to the provisional results of the 2011 national census of India. What about the final results?
 * The change has been made in the article. It's done. Aviator423 (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said before, that was only a sample; no amount of work in the FAC process is going to change my mind looking at the article again. I must again maintain my oppose and suggest that this be closed if not withdrawn before. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * All the suggestions and modifications mentioned in this FAC review have been incorporated in the article. It's all in Ian Rose's hands now. Aviator423 (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers and Thank You very much John Wolfson, Nikkimaria, Fowler&amp;fowler  and Ian Rose !! It was a pleasure listening to all of you :) Aviator423 (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * As I said above, this is but a sample so dealing with these alone is not enough for me to strike my oppose. I wish you the best with this article, but significant work remains to be done outside of the FAC process. Have a good day! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Coord notes
Aviator423, I suggest you re-think your attitude to the review process. Articles come to FAC to be critiqued. You aren't required to agree with everything a reviewer says but you need to treat them with respect and not surliness. They are volunteers just like you but they don't get a gold star if the article is promoted. Also remember that FAC is not here to judge how much effort has gone into an article, by yourself or GOCE or anyone else, but whether the end result meets the FAC criteria. It would have been quite within the FAC guidelines for the coordinators to have archived this as soon as they'd noted the suggestions for withdrawal by Nikki or John. As some time has passed since then and changes have been made to the article, I'll invite them to take another look and indicate whether they stand by their original recommendations. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers Ian Rose, it's your decision.
 * Thank you for your kind and informative words. G'Day Mate :)
 * Aviator423 (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This should be closed ASAP, in my opinion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please have another look at the article. Here is the latest version.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mangalore&oldid=943700848
 * Best Regards, Aviator423 (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Given the above, I'm archiving this. A good idea would be to work with the two opposing editors to address issues on the talk page outside of the FAC process so there is less pressure of time contraints. --Ealdgyth (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)