Wikipedia:Peer review/Bangladesh/archive2

Bangladesh
This article has improved a lot in the last month, most notably with the inclusion of a lot of relevant images, very detailed references for almost all the facts quoted, and standard sections as per country pages. The language has also been NPOVized to a great extent. So, I think we can move this into FAC, but before that, I'd like to hear other people's opninions in avenues for improvement. Thanks. --Ragib 05:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The only remaining point, IMO, is reducing size from 49kb to lower 40s, which is a reasonable figure for articles on nations. Rama&#39;s Arrow 05:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC) -> Done, size now 46KB, which should be ok --Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * With all respect, given the high level of referencing in this article, this advice is rather arbitrary and/or infeasible &mdash; as long as the article stays on topic and summary style is used, arbitrary length cutoffs shouldn't matter (FAC objections based on such cutoffs have been repeatedly over-ruled by the FAC Director &mdash; see Featured article candidates/Chetwynd, British Columbia for just one great example). Also, note that this article is 37kb when only the "References" and "External links" sections are cut out &mdash; this is much less than the 44kb Australia. Saravask 23:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, please check that there is no glaring difference between the account of the Bangladesh Liberation War/genocide in the Pakistan article and this one - Pakistan is also prepping for FAC. Rama&#39;s Arrow 05:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC) ->Actually, Pakistan's page describes it in one sentence in the history section and the text in this article is just an elaboration. Since Bangladeshi history starts at this point, an elaborated treatment of the war in a whole paragraph is needed, and done here in a crisp, brief manner.--Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The name of Bangladesh in the Bengali script sounds like bangladashe (the Bengali script is a perpetual problem). Also, the map in the infobox is not correct.The green patch depicting Bangladesh in the infobox map appears to have skewed to the left.
 * The portion where the highest point in Bangladesh is described (in Geography and Climate section) appears somewhat confusing, it takes time to make out what the writer is trying to say.--Dwaipayanc 05:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Bangla script problem is actually a client side issue ... it happens with all indic scripts. Actually, this is correctly rendered in a unicode enabled browser. I assume that you are looking into it from Firefox/XP. In any case, to view unicode Bangla text correctly, that indic text support needs to be enabled in Windows XP. The text renders correctly in IE, and also Linux/Firefox and other browsers.


 * I agree that the highest point is debated. Keokeradong was always thought to be so, but a satellite survey about 2 years ago showed that's not correct. But whatever that is, I agree that the text should reflect that clearly. Thanks for the observation. --Ragib 06:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree abt the genocide part, there is need to be careful there. Also, a previous review mentioned the lack of attention given to Ershad, which still remains a problem.--ppm 05:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The cultural section needs a lot of work. Some of the prose is South Asian English, not English English, and some of the sentences are clumsy. Frex, "Contemporary Bangladesh keeps producing a substantial amount of litearture of all forms." That makes literature sound like the jute harvest. It would be better to say something about the number of newspapers, magazines, and books published, literacy, readership, and perhaps to mention the names of some well-known contemporary writers. Is there an article on Bengali literature?

The history section contains a lurid sentence which runs something like "Rape of Bangladesh was one of the worst genoicides in history, as bad as the genoicide in Cambodia" and there's a link to an emotional website. It was horrible, inexcusable, vile ... I hadn't realized that it was so terrible ... and I shudder to think that the perpetrators are still living at their ease. Still, it wasn't as bad as Cambodia, where Pol Pot managed to kill 25% of the population. The West Pakistanis didn't manage that in Bangladesh. Now perhaps "bad" is measured by population numbers, but that's a clumsy scale to use ... wiping out 100% of an Amazon tribe of 1000 people would seem "less bad" than killing 2000 people out of a population of 10,000,000. Perhaps you should leave out the judgements about more or less bad and just present the facts ... that's horrifying enough.

I'm sure that there are more nits to pick, but those were the biggest problems I saw. Zora 06:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There is an article on Bangla literature, which last time I checked was a copy of the relevant portion in the entry Bangla. In general, increasing culture makes the article longer, specially when we are already missing art and architecture there. Maybe we should shorten history?--ppm 06:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll review in detail after the article is summarised and copyedited. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The article needs to be written in summary form and you would need to trim about ~5 kb of content.
 * Article needs a copyedit (->Does it still need it? we've tried to go through every error, so how is it now?--Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))
 * Please don't compare the country with another (Greece). It needs to be a summary of the article. (Done--Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))
 * Remove the time magazine cover. It's not a free image. (Done--Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))
 * Merge politics with government. (Done--Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))
 * Please avoid squeezing text between two images.
 * The Education section can be removed


 * At the bottom of the article is a table on Holidays which virtually replicates the page on Public holidays in Bangladesh. One of the two tables should be removed - probably the one on the main article - and the information merged into the last paragraph of the Culture section which mentions Eid. Green Giant 06:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC) (Done--Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))


 * Thanks, I've removed the holiday section. Most of the holidays are mentioned in the Culture section. --Ragib 02:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Just something I noticed right away were three links in the middle of the history section that need to be converted into references or something. Looking at the page in the printable version makes the section look ugly with the URLs present in the paragraph as opposed to at the bottom like the references. Pepsidrinka 04:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out, I've changed them to refs/notes format. I couldn't notice them in the normal view ... the printable view suggestion is great indeed. Thanks. --Ragib 08:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Another thing about the references; try keeping a consistent pattern with regards to the punctuation. I don't know if there is correct format, but have the references preceding the punctuations (e.g., commas and periods) or have them after them. Right now, some of the references come after a period and others come before a comma, it just looks un-professional. Pepsidrinka 04:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice article. Good amount of content. Two quick points now, I'll add more later.
 * The article needs a copyedit to bring a better tone and style. For example, the second paragraph in the lead, just uses the words "east" and "west" to refer to East Pakistan and West Pakistan respectively. It has phrases like "ruled by the west" that need clarification. (Done--Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))
 * Image:PakSurrender.jpg has a non-existent template as a license. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC) (Replaced. --Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

Encyclopedic indeed
A page representing the highest wiki-tradition, a truly encyclopedic page, The page has all the ingredients to migrate to the status of a featured page. It is really heartening to note that as of now the page has no redlinks, as such the user shall have the luxury to dig deep into the contents covered in this page. I am re- reading the page very carefully, and shall surely come back with more comments, if required. --Bhadani 08:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The only red link in Bangladesh now in Khanjan .I don't know what is that. Please try to make it blue! And as you guys have already discussed in the Bangladesh talk page, the article would be splendid with some more photos, especially on the cultural aspect. A photo of a rice field with farmers is so much representative of our mental picture of gram bangla (the rural Bengal). Have you thought about adding something on Transport/ communication in Bangladesh? The picture of that long bridge over Jamuna will be excellent.Bye.--Dwaipayanc 19:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the "Education" section should stay. Also, given the quality of this article right now, it should be put up at FAC immediately, so that more critique would be available. Other than that, minor issues: "$" should be converted to "USD" or "US$", non-breaking spaces and   need to be used consistently. This looks great &mdash; good luck. Saravask 23:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree with Saravask. Bangladesh should be put up at FAC ASAP.The article is great. If you see this FA you will see so many red links and a lack of photos.Compared to that and other FA like This Charming Man, Bangladesh is already superior, though potentially more controversial especially in the history section.Putting up for FAC will attract more critique than this peer review and faults, if any, can be mended quickly. Please go for FAC. Bye.--Dwaipayanc 09:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Note watch Featured article candidates/Pakistan for a bit. Any problems/comments noted there will automatically be useful for this article. Rama&#39;s Arrow 17:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Everything looks good except the subdivisions section. The problem is the main article links break up the prose and make for very short, choppy sentences. Consider merging that section with politics too. - Taxman Talk 21:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Template
Hi - I've just created "BangladeshTopics." Please help to customize and improve it. Rama&#39;s Arrow 17:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm updating it. --Ragib 02:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

How about now?
How is the article right now? I've commented in bold replies to most of the points raised above, so please take a look and let me know. Thanks. --Ragib 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks great. You have my vote at the FAC. It could help with a mild copyedit. I'll try doing some if I find time. On random inspection, I found two things that need fixing.
 * Excessive use of possessive case marker with the word Bangladesh. Consider using the of form, as in economic engine of Bangladesh, wherever possible. Done--ppm 20:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Is the alluvial soil prone to flood and drought? Or does it make the terrain prone to them? Please clarify.  Reworded --ppm 20:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll put any other issues at the article's talk page or here. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks ppm. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Is the "10 million" figure for the refugees who fled to India not disputed? Rama&#39;s Arrow 19:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There are citations from the US State department, provided in the article Bangladesh Liberation War, I can copy that here. Thanks. --Ragib 20:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I added a reference for this statement. It's not widely disputed anyway (as opossed to numbers killed), numbers vary only from 8-10 million--ppm 03:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd like to see something about the disputes over illegal immigration from Bangladesh into India in the article - there are large numbers of Bangladeshis in India, legal and illegal, and also many going to Pakistan. Rama&#39;s Arrow 19:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that can be summarized in one sentence in the main article, I will work on that. --Ragib 20:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, but the article India does not have anything on this issue. If it's not an important enough topic in the India article, why is it crucial here?--ppm 02:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If there are an estimated 10 - 15 million Bangladeshis in India as a result of systematic illegal immigration, obviously its something relevant and important to Bangladesh. India has some lines on its expatriate community, but the illegal immigration problem from Bangladesh is not characteristic to India (while it is to Bangladesh, as these people are its citizens). Please note that 15 million would make roughly 10% of the present population, so I think you can't really ignore this. Rama&#39;s Arrow 15:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If someone would add a line about this in India, I definitely would not mind coz its important. Rama&#39;s Arrow 15:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can find a reference. In any case, we must be careful not to depict other South Asian countries in India's terms.--ppm 03:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * okay i added a sentence in demographics covering this, along with more important immigration/refugee problems that concern Bangladesh--ppm 22:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've made some major edits to the page including copyediting. A few red links are introduced, it should be made blue, 1 citation needed, and the highest point mentioned. I've removed the =Education= section as per the Wikiproject countries which does not list it. I've also merged =sports= under culture and pruned away victories over Pakistan etc. The only thing remaining is the =History= section. Up till this point in 1966, its president Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was jailed and in 1969 was released after unprecedented popular uprising. the section is well summarised, but after that it becomes too detailed. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC) (citation and highest point provided--ppm 05:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC))


 * The first map, which was previously quite deformed as Dwaipayanc noted, is now fixed. I think (unfortunately, in a somewhat biased way) that this is now ready for FAC. One particularly good thing about this article is that it's throughly fact-checked and footnotes are used extensively. Sheehan (Talk) 08:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)