Wikipedia:Peer review/Sitakunda Upazila/archive2

===Sitakunda Upazila=== This peer review discussion has been closed. It started as a shabby article. Then it went through a tough peer review, and then a tough GA review. All that toughness really paid off, and I believe, with a little push, it could make a fair FA candidate. Therefore, I am submitting it to peer review again. Be tough, be thorough, be merciless... all that are needed in this case. Aditya (talk • contribs) 13:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/Sitakunda Upazila/archive2.
 * Previous peer review


 * Helloooooo. Anybody out there? Take a look, make a comment... I promise to be good. Aditya (talk • contribs) 14:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is on the list of articles at least a week old without a review so someone should get to it in the next day or sooner. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from
Hellooooooo Aditya! Yeah, this was long in coming...but here it is:
 * The introduction might need a few more citations (there are only two in the last sentence).
 * I have put in-line citations only to support the marginally controversial information, as suggested by Lead section. The rest are left alone as everything in the lead is repeated in the body, and all the in-line citations are provided in the body, again per the manual of style. In fact, I had the lead full of cites at one point in the past, and only removed the repeated refs when suggested so. Do you think I should be putting them back into the lead?
 * Sorry if I'm late (again)! Spring break, you know.
 * As to the cites...well, you might not have to restore all of them, if, in fact, they were redundant. One or two more will just ease the eye a bit more.
 * Done


 * "The industry has been accused of neglecting workers' rights, especially concerning work safety practices and child labor, as well as harming the environment, particularly by causing soil contamination." sounds a little awkward. It could be rephrased or separated into two sentences.
 * Done


 * "During the sixth and seventh centuries CE, the Chittagong region was ruled by the Kingdom of Arakan. In the seventh century, it was briefly ruled by Dharmapala (reign: 770–810) of the Pala Empire. The area was conquered in 1340 by Sultan Fakhruddin Mubarak Shah (reign: 1338–1349) of Sonargaon, who founded a Sultanate of Bengal." is a little bit choppy. Transitional words (Then, also, etc.) could help.
 * Done See if it reads right.
 * Yes, much better. ^_^


 * Should the reign of the sultans be listed here? Although they don't take up much space, the fact that they are linked to an article that includes that selfsame information might make the mentions redundant in this article.
 * I was under the impression that I did link the Sultans. Did I miss something there. I would very much love to make this part as clear as possible, especially to people who dosn't know bits of the story already. Please, please... lend more help here.
 * To be brutally honest, I have no idea what I was mumbling about. Maybe I thought the parentheses shouldn't be there...anyhow, I find no problem with it now.


 * I'm not sure about this (considering the relative grammatical correctness of the rest of the article), but should "20,000 metric tons...Greek ship" be "20,000-metric-ton...Greek ship"?
 * I guess, that was the doing of Template:Convert. I don't know what can be done here. Will look into the matter though.
 * What I meant was that the hyphens should be there. Was that caused by the template, too?
 * The template does it the pre-loaded way, sad. But, it's the only easy to convert a lot of imperial measures to metric measures, sad again.


 * "As at 2007, Sitakunda..." should be "As of 2007, Sitakunda..."
 * Done


 * Are red links needed here? Does they have to be linked even though there are no articles about them?
 * Give me a couple of days more, I would definitely turn all the redlinks blue. Promise.
 * I have reduced the number of redlinks already. The rest needs to become articles, really.


 * Again with hyphenation..."two-ton steel reinforced concrete" should be "two-ton steel-reinforced concrete." And here, "88 kilometres (55 mi) long Halda" could be "88-kilometres-long(55 mi) Halda." But, as I am unfamiliar with British grammar, this might be acceptable; I'm not sure.
 * It's not the British grammar, rather it's that damn convert template.


 * A little WP:NPOV might help here: "Both the gently dipping eastern..."
 * I guess it's kind of geology-speak. Looking for solution though.


 * To help reduce wordiness..."The Sitakunda–Teknaf fault is considered by local experts to be one of the two most active seismic faults in Bangladesh" could be "Local experts consider the Sitakunda–Teknaf fault to be one of the two most active seismic faults in Bangladesh." (passive to active)
 * Done


 * "Apart from the majority, Bengali people,..." could be "Apart from the Bengali majority,..."
 * Done


 * The parenthesis in "Bhatiari and Sadar unions (the town) selected as zones for industrialization, like South Halishahar and Kalurghat" make it unclear. Could it be rephrased?
 * Done


 * A little bit of choppiness here, too: "In the 2001 parliamentary elections, L. K. Siddiki of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), was elected as the member of parliament. His main opposition came from A. B. M. Abul Kasem of the Bangladesh Awami League. Jalaluddin Ahmed is the Upazila Nirbahi Officer, the chief executive of the upazila. The upazila is served by a court of a first-class magistrate."
 * Well... trying to figure out what exactly should be done to reduce choppiness (I have put submitted the article to the League of Copyeditors already).


 * "The [ship-breaking] industry has come under threat" could be "The industry has been threatened..."
 * Done


 * I don't think the comma should be here in "for seven hours in September, 2007."
 * Done


 * "...a practice that was responsible for the 2007 Chittagong mudslide. In June 2007, Sitakunda was badly affected by mudslides..." Is this redundant? Maybe the second sentence here could be moved to "Geography and climate."
 * Done Moved to history. Better fit, I guess.


 * "Employment for local people is low..." should probably be "Employment of local people is low in the industrial..."
 * Done


 * I think there should be a comma between Chittagong and which in "between Dhaka and Chittagong which would be a part of..."
 * Done


 * "...a pond (kunda) for Sita Devi to bathe when..." could be "...a pond (kunda) for Sita Devi to bathe in when..."
 * Done


 * Should "at village Masjidda" be "at the village of Masjidda"?
 * Done


 * Some of these ancient years could be linked, if possible.
 * Done


 * "These temples have been repeatedly subject to attack and violation by Muslims..." could be "These temples have been subject to repeated attack and violation by Muslims..."
 * Done


 * Could the "Flora and fauna" section be changed to a level 3 heading under "Geography"? And could it be renamed as "Wildlife," to be more direct?
 * Well, it is there per other articles, and title is a result of the previous peer review. Do you really think it should be otherwise?
 * Hmm. Well if it's protocol, I guess we could let it be.


 * I'm not sure, but I don't think "Tiger Shrimps" should be capitalized.
 * Done


 * The first paragraph of "Society" could be moved under "Demography," but this is optional.
 * I intended to put health, education and culture in this section. I could put in appropriate sub-headers if you like d.
 * Nah, this is just optional. You do as you like. :)


 * TB in "a railway TB hospital" could be linked to the article on tuberculosis for clarification.
 * Done


 * Another optional change: should "The proportion of disabled" be changed to "The percentage of disabled"?
 * Done


 * "National newspapers published in Dhaka including Prothom Alo, Ajker Kagoj, Janakantha and The Daily Ittefaq, as well as regional newspapers published in Chittagong Azadi and Purbakon, are available in Sitakunda." is a little too complex.
 * Done


 * "...month of Falgun (end February)" should be "month of Falgun (end of February)..."
 * Done


 * The "See also" section could be expanded.
 * Done

Sorry the PR took so long...I only just found it today. And rocking userpage, by the way. :)
 * Thanks for the compliment. When I am really not feeling like doing research or fighting vandals or even a bit of gnoming, I edit my user page :P. I have addressed some of the issues, and hope to finish the rest tomorrow. Some I couldn't address (the reasons are provided). Thanks for the review. With your help, I really hope I'll be able to improve the atrocious English here. Already four really wonderful and well-reputed copyeditors have gone tired of working on the copy (blame it all on my non-English origins). Aditya (talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, the English isn't atrocious (I've seen worse). It's actually a pretty good article, overall. In fact, not half of the Classical music articles I normally deal with are near as good, in regards to content, citations, sentence structure, etc.
 * Almost done Done, apart from the two difficult copyedit bits I am leaving to the League. Aditya (talk • contribs) 05:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from
Ruhrfisch comments: This is a general comment - I see from the talk and other pages that this article is seen as a model for all the other Upazilas in Bangladesh. I think in that case it may be useful to have a general short section or even paragraph or two explaining Upazilas in general. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess, it would do no good if we have to repeat the same stuff on what's an upazila in 460 articles. Rather, I have put a link to the core Upazila article in the "See also" section". That should be able to explain it to non-Bangladeshis. Aditya (talk • contribs) 05:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it is your call. In any case, please do not use "done" or other graphics here - takes too much space. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Have removed graphics. Would you take another look at the article? It will be particularly beneficial if a non-Bangladeshi made a review. There are stuff that would be apparent to a Bangladeshi and perfectly intelligible to non-Bangladeshis. And, oh, do you really think the Upazila articles should have a paragraph or something that explains an Upazila (that was non-Bangladeshi observation)? Aditya (talk • contribs) 02:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing the graphics. I like to provide context for the reader and I think most readers outside Bangladesh will have only a very vague notion of what an Upazila is. So if there were even two sentences near the beginning explaining in general that these are subdistricts of districts and as such are the "lowest level of administrative government in Bangladesh", and a second sentence perhaps giving the relation to the district and higher levels of government (here perhaps something like "This is one of fourteen upazilas in Chittagong District, which is itself one of eleven districts in the Chittagong Division, which is one of the six divisions of Bangladesh"). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC).

Comments from
I feel the lead gives undue weight to "Economy" and "Pilgrimage sites", rather than summarising the whole article. "The industry has been accused of neglecting workers' rights, especially concerning work safety practices and child labor. It has also been accused of harming the environment, particularly by causing soil contamination."—not needed in the lead. More of history could be there in the lead.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)