Wikipedia:Peer review/Hyderabad, India/archive3

Hyderabad, India
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because, The comprehensive editing done through the last couple of months had Improved its standards, We need input/feedback from peer reviewers to make it an absolute FAN. Thanks :) Omer123hussain (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Previous peer review
 * I'll do this. --Noleander (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
 * Comments from Noleander
 * Numbering: The article uses "crore" five times, which (I didn't know) means 10,000,000.  I would not use that word, although I understand it is used in India and the sources.  The wording for the article should be aimed at typical readers from around the world.    If you insist on using it: (1) make sure the first usage is linked (now it is the 4th); and (2) put it in parenthesis after a more standard number.  E.g.  "The population was 200,000,000 (20 crore)."
 * Number: "ninety third" should be "93rd" per WP:ORDINAL
 * Poetic: " sobriquet" - a bit fancy. Could  a plainer word be used?  nickname?
 * Ambiguity: "Hyderabad, the capital of Andhra Pradesh, is located in the north-western part of the state ..." - Readers may not know that AP is the state. Consider "   Hyderabad is the the capital of the state of Andhra Pradesh, and is located in the north-western part of that state." or similar.
 * Need map: The article would be more useful with a map of the city.
 * Clarify & wording: "the city was listed among the Gamma+ World City by GaWC... " - Readers wont know what GaWC is, nor what Gamma+ means. Maybe try somethin g like "The economic anaysis group GaWC ranked H in its third tier (Gamma+) of cities by importance." or similar.
 * *I think we should remove this contents, as it gives no weight and importance of being a tier three city in 2010.
 * Yes, just remove this. Unimportant info.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is up to you to remove it or not; however I've seen those GaWC rankings mentioned a lot recently; so being in Gamma+ is something to brag about. --Noleander (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

✅ ✅
 * Cite bundling: when a sentence has two footnotes such as #18, #19, #20;  or  #117 and #118, consider merging them into a single footnote per WP:CITEBUNDLE (already done in #116 and #249)
 * Sister cities: Two cities are missing citations.  I'm not sure if that would be an obstacle to FA, but you never know. ✅
 * Puffery: Pic caption: "with world class infrastructure" - the term "world class" is a bit WP:PEACOCK ... can a more professional term be used? ✅
 * Wording: "Hyderabad houses 13 universities, of which two are private universities, .." - "houses" doesnt seem right for a city. Try "Thirteen universities are located within H ..."
 * Precise? : "The city is among the 16 most polluted cities of India, transportation ..." - That reads strange. What is the exact rank? Why not just say  "The city is the 14th most polluted city ..."?
 * The source does not give the ranking of the particular city, it was generally presented as "16th most polluted city".
 * Actually the source is a newspaper report that says Hyderabad is among 16 most polluted cities in India. This is ambiguous. The newspaper report does not mention its source. I think we have to delete the particular number here. Just remove the sentence, unless you can find some reliable report (from some central government agency such as Central Pollution Control Board ) mentioning any such ranking.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
 * Plural? - "which was ruled by the Chalukya dynasty from 731 CE to 966 CE.[7] Following the dissolution of Chalukyas into four .." -  Maybe it is correct, but it seems odd that singular Chalukya is later plural.
 * Wording: "As per the ..." - "as per" is not encyclopedic. Reword to "According to ..." or similar.
 * Link broken: Footnote #28 has a link error: "^ Lumby 1954, pp. 240 Harv error: link to #CITEREFLumby1954 doesn't point to any citation."
 * The "Further Reading" section at the bottom: Recommend move up below the Footnotes section: See WP:LAYOUT or WP:FURTHER which indicates that FR should be below the footnotes but above the External Links.
 * Books missing: it is customary in articles with important subjects, such as a major city, to include a list of significant books that cover the topic. More books should be added to this articles Further Reading section. Articles on much more focused/insignificant topics have better Reference lists than this article.   For example, Google Books shows over 10,000 items with the word "Hyderabad" in the title, here:


 * Comprehensive? Have history books been used? It seems strange that the vast majority of the citations used in this article are newspaper or magazine articles, rather than texts, history books, cultural books, etc. The article cites a few books, e.g. A history of South India from prehistoric times to the fall of Vijayanagar - but only a few.  I'm not doubting that the magazines cited are valid sources, but it seems odd.   I recommend that you locate some top-notch history/economic/cultural texts that cover India/Hyderabad and read the books' coverage of Hyderabad and see if you find some additional material for the article.


 * Ambiguous Link: Click on the "disambig" button in upper right corner of this PR page: it will show that Mughal link needs to be disambiguated.
 * Images should be supplied with an "alt" caption. See WP:ALT. Although not strictly required for FA, the alt text helps blind or seeing-impaired people get a verbal description of what each picture is showing.  To review alt images in the article, click the "alt image" button in UR corner of this page.
 * ✅ --Omer123hussain (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Images on left side? MOS:IMAGES suggests that some images should be on the left side of the article. In FA articles, it is customary to have about 1/4 to 1/2 of the images on the left side; but it is not a hard requirement.  Sometimes it is difficult  to get images on the left side, but for this article try to move a few over there.e
 * Shall look into this part in the end, after fulfilling all the requirements of PR.
 * ✅ :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Completeness? - Double check that the article is "comprehensive" as required by FA:  find some other FA articles on cities, such as  Bangalore or  Tulsa, Oklahoma or  San Francisco or  Seattle, and review their table of contents, and make sure this article has comparable coverage, if applicable.  For example, this article does not have a Landmarks/Tourist attractions section; nor a section on Neighborhoods/Suburbs etc.
 * Landmarks or Tourist attractions of the city have been incorporated in other sections such as Culture. Just as an example, museums and architecture have been discussed under "culture".
 * A subsection on neighbourhood would be a welcome addition under "Geography" section. It need not be a large subsection. Just general cityscape or how the parts/neighbourhood of the city are arranged could be adequate. --Dwaipayan (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

End Noleander comments Your Peer review is very much, standard and organized. Its ggod to have you. best wishes for our task :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol? In the section "Pollution control" is the sentence:  " The project started with a sum of  ??? 434 crore, funded by the state government."  - I have put ??? where a mystery symbol is (it will not cut-and-paste). Readers will have  no idea what that symbol is.  There is no link on the symbol, so I cannot click on it and find out what it means.   Instead use dollars, GB pounds, or Rupees.
 * Overall, it is a fine article. If you fix all the issues above (especially looking at additional books to ensure comprehensiveness) it should be ready for FAC.   Or, you can always seek another Peer Review (you cannot have too many :-)