Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gangtok/archive1


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

The article was kept by User:Marskell 09:33, 8 June 2008.

Review commentary

 * ''Wikiprojects listed on the talk page and User:Nichalp have been notified.

The article does not follow most of the FA criteria including, 1b, 1c, 2a and 2c. This article is not worth more than a B rated article. Huge editing is required for this purpose. Amartyabag  TALK2ME  02:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I would need your inputs on this: When you say that 1b is not satisfied, what points do you have in mind that need to make it more comprehensive? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't know about other points but 2c is not satisfied. Even the meagre 6-7 refs are not formatted ie. publisher and accessdate are missing. This article desperately needs inline refs. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Inline references can be easily fixed, so I'm not so worried about it. 1b requires more time to research, add, copyedit and reference. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest looking at the Darjeeling article for 1b. Specifically, the history section needs some work (for example, the status of Gangtok and Sikkim during British times is not at all clear), and you should add something on Education and Media. For 1c, you will need to find many reliable sources. Too many to point out here but these should be easily available (IMHO). 1d and 1e are fine. Style: 2a is fine though it needs something to 'draw' the reader in, what makes Gangtok special (see the Darjeeling article for example). 2b ok. 2c, well it needs many more citations.--RegentsPark (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Just a note: Gangtok was never under the direct control over the British. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I feel point 1a is mostly violated with section "Localities" added to the article. Unless the locality is really of encyclopedic importance(historical,geographical,political,economical,etc...) it should not come into the article. People simply ignore such sections and scroll down the article to read more. -- gp pande «talk» 08:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I see someone removed the localities section. Thanks ! -- gp pande «talk» 19:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

One more question - why is there a vertical photo gallery in top half of the article? As such, the bottom section completely lacks images. Rumtek monastery is mentioned many times in the culture and city institution section but photo lies in upper half of the article. Any specific reason? -- gp pande «talk» 19:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Many of the images were added after the article became featured. Please have a look at the version of the article when it got featured. Probably during later addition of the images, those were added haphazardly, leading to the apparent disorganization.
 * Yes, the "localities" section has been removed. And other works are being done gradually.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried to fit the images as per section. -- gp pande «talk» 16:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya, the images are all mixed up. I'll try and source some better looking images. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I was surprised to see how much the article has changed. Well, one big question, even in FA version, the civic administration is saying, Gangtok is governed by municipal corporation. Fact is, it was abolished in 1985 and responsility lies in hands of Urban Development and Housing Department[]. As such there is no special body for Gangtok and UDHP takes of major towns in Sikkim. Isn't there a wrong information in both current and FA version? -- gp pande «talk» 15:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good point and reference you have raised. Please go ahead and correct any errors you find. And also, if you can manage some time, please add citations. You can go through the list of webpages Nichalp has provided in the talk page of Gangtok. Regards,--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's under a municipal corporation now.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, after intensive google search, I found the first elections for GMC will be held on June 11, 2008. http://beacononline.wordpress.com/2008/04/02/civic-polls-in-sikkim-on-june-11/ Maybe this can go in the section. -- gp pande «talk» 10:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sections Geography, Economy, Civic governance, Media, Transport and Demographics have now been thoroughly cited. -- gp pande «talk» 15:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Update - This version was at the beginning of the FAR. This is the present version. Major works have been done in sections such as Geography, Climate, Economy, Civic governance etc. Inline citations are being added, formatted and improved. About a third of work has been completed. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer - Sikkiminfo says that it is not fully reliable and the user has to double check for themselves....Also holidayiq seems to be user contributed.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 02:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * holidayiq removed. Sikkiminfo has been used to support some non-exceptional sentences, such as the cable TV service provider of the city,and newspapers printed in other cities reaching on the same day in Gangtok. I believe foe such sentences, "sikkim info" (whose information, as they say in the disclaimer, are for general use only) can be used. However, if reviewers insist, no problem in removing the citations.
 * Otherwise, have tried to provide RS citations. The lead will soon be dealt with by Nichalp, as well as general copyedit. The article has been made comprehensive.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we want better than this for a FA.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 04:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Sikkiminfo being used as a source, since they aren't qualified in this field and are just running their own website.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 04:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks for the clarification. Sikkiminfo will be removed.  Taking some time in case RS is found to support the sentence. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * sikkiminfo references replaced/removed. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments- Woh!!! what a improvement in the article quality. Good works guys. There is no etymology section or a paragraph as per the norms of WikiProject Indian cities· Pls try to add it. I will comment more when i get time. Amartyabag   TALK2ME  16:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It use to be there in lead of the article till holidayiq citation was removed for doubt on it accuracy. How about using this. It says The literal meaning of the word Gangtok is ‘hilltop’.  The website's about us page says the infomation is correct according to them. -- gp pande «talk» 16:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While the source provided by GPPande (indiasite.com) is more reliable then the user-generated holidayiq, still it's status is somewhat like sikkiminfo.net. That is, IMO, the site's info are ok for general use. However, the etymology is not exactly a general use. Etymology needs more solid sourcing. Since we could not find such a source, IMO, we may have to part with the etymolgy.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), referencing (1b), and LEAD (2a). Marskell (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Looks good to me! Some quick specific suggestions:
 * I think it would be useful to say what kind of pilgrimage center (I assume for Tibetan Buddhists) in the lead. Other than that (an a few minor grammatical errors) the lead looks good.
 * History is good (I think I can help with the missing citation but gotta get to the library). Except for the last two sentences which are an odd shift from the political history in the paragraph (as well as the rest of the section). Plus, the major disaster goes unexplained (I assume it was a landslide but that is not clear).
 * More later (though probably not much) but a quick question if someone happens to know the answer. Is the Raj Bhavan the former Residency of the British Representative? If yes, I have a nice photograph of the gardens from the early 1900s that I can upload. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 23:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Note Here is the version that was nominated for FAR. Here is the diff between FAR and FARC version.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments : *Kindly resolve the tags.
 * I think you need to reword the following section, Flora around Gangtok includes temperate, deciduous forests of poplar, birch, oak, and elm, as well as evergreen, coniferous trees of the wet alpine.[13] Densely forested regions of these evergreens lie just around the town. A wide variety of rare orchids are often featured in flower shows around the city.[13] Sunflower, marigold, poinsettia, and other flowers bloom in November and December. Bamboo grows in abundance along the slopes of Gangtok, providing a perennial source of spring water, which originates from the roots of the trees. In the lower reaches of the town, the vegetation graduates from alpine to subtropical and temperate deciduous. It seems like copy-paste from http://jnnurm.nic.in/toolkit/GangtokCdp/Chapter-2.pdf . pls do the needful.
 * Use template for PDF files. Pls see Kaziranga for the usage.  Amartyabag   TALK2ME  11:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding use of the template, its use may make prose harder to read. Still, we;ll use in some instances to see how it looks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The description of flora has now been re-worded.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The suggested criteria concerns have been addressed. The article now meets all the criteria. The difference between the FAR version and the present version shows the improvement.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – The etymology section can be omitted as it is too short to be included in a standalone section. Other than that, the article has improved significantly. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work here. Will keep. Someone should either provide full publication info for the three books in References or remove them if they are not used in the article. Marskell (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed those books. They were used in the past in the article. However, the present version hardly used them. And the references of the present version are entirely stated in "Notes" section. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe the article is now better organized, has better images, better data and looks to be written like pro. Please keep. -- gp pande «talk» 14:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.