Wikipedia:Peer review/Vijayawada/archive1

Vijayawada
I've listed this article for peer review because… of recent improvement of its section and need feedback from other users of its structure and content.

Thanks,  Vin09 &thinsp; (talk)   10:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks much better now. I happened to read this article some 30 days ago. Abhinav619 (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take a look.
 * Toponomy
 * "Goddess Durga killed the demon" - which demon?
 * What language are "Vijaya" and "wada" from?
 * "The city thereafter came to be known as Vijayavatika and later as Vijayawada" - why "Vijayavatika"?
 * Why was the city referred to as "Rajendracholapura" at one point?


 * History
 * first paragraph:
 * "Bezawada (Vijayawada)" is written twice. Seems redundant. Also why is Bezawada written and not one of the other historical names for the city, like Vijayavatika?
 * "the last of the three pitakas (Pali for baskets) constituting the Pali canon, the scriptures of Theravada Buddhism" - this is a direct copy/paste from the Abhidhamma Pitaka article, doesn't look good.
 * Who are the "Pusapatis of Vizianagaram"?
 * "Akkana Madanna Caves situated at the foot of Indrakeeladri Hill is a monument of national importance" - reason?
 * "Of them, the inscriptions issued by Yudhamalla I and II of Eastern Chalukyas are important ones" - how so?
 * The listing of dates is inconsistent: "640 A.D.", "9th century AD", "4th - 9th centuries", "early sixteen century"
 * This section doesn't seem to have a chronological flow/order.


 * Geography
 * Source #2 Climate-Data.org doesn't look reliable.

I'll continue later. — Sunnya343&#9992; (háblame • my work) 17:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Continuing...
 * Demographics
 * "The predominant languages spoken by the city residents are, Telugu" - nothing else? Any statistics?
 * The source "Census2011.co.in" - is it reliable? Doesn't look like it's a government webpage.
 * I think there should be some introduction/description along with the religion table.


 * Governance
 * "and was upgraded to selection grade municipality in 1960 and finally to corporation in the year 1981" - I don't see the significance of this information. What exactly do these mean?
 * The commissioner and mayor don't need to be capitalized.
 * Instead of saying "the present mayor" etc. try writing something like "Koneru Sridhar became mayor in [year]" per MOS:RELTIME.
 * for "an estimated population of 18 lakhs" - Western conversion should be given per MOS:NUMERAL.
 * references [2] and [40] are the same
 * Any information on why Vijayawada is covered under the Solar/Green Cities scheme? Does it have/has it had pollution issues?


 * Culture
 * "mainly due to the existence of self manifested Kanaka Durga Temple" - what does "self-manifested" mean?
 * "housing the holy relic of the Prophet Mohammed" - which/what relic?
 * Source [67] doesn't seem to be good - it's a collection of opinions from members of the public, and there's no mention of Vijayawada
 * "Arts, crafts and artefacts" section could have some better flow.
 * paragraph beginning "The city of Vijayawada has old and new town areas".... - I don't think so many examples of constituent suburbs need to be listed, focus on the notable ones.
 * Could be excess detail that means nothing to a reader who is not familiar with the city.
 * I think the panorama image should go beneath the "Cityscape" section as it interferes with reading in my view.


 * Transport
 * write out abbreviations like "APSRTC" and "BRTS" per MOS:ACRO
 * "A new circular railway project proposed would extend up to the state capital, Amaravati" - when was it proposed? Is it a serious proposal, is there any progress? I say this because there are a lot of proposals for new infrastructure that might not all take-off.
 * same with the metro system - status? I googled it and things don't look good.
 * "The city has a total road length of 1,264.24 km (785.56 mi),[97] used by 678,004 non-transport and 94,937 transport vehicles" - as of what date? Surely these statistics are changing regularly.
 * Same for auto-rickshaws. Maybe exact statistics are too much detail, you could simply say "Short distance commuting is served by over 27,000 auto rickshaws" for example.
 * "and holds a share of 18% in the country" - what is the significance/connection to Vijayawada?
 * "On 3 May 2017, Vijayawada Airport was upgraded from domestic to international" - how so? It got international flights for the first time?
 * "During the 2016–17 fiscal year, it registered domestic passenger movement growth rate of 56.1% with a total passenger count of 622,354[105] and Aircraft movement recorded a growth of 54.8% with 10,333 aircraft." - growth rates compared to the previous fiscal year?
 * Overall this section is done very well with a nice focus on the notable information.


 * Education
 * "It is one of the three School of Planning and Architecture (SPAs) established by the Ministry of Human Resource Development in 2008 as an autonomous institute and a fully Central funded Institution." - no source


 * Sports
 * nothing in this section should be italicized
 * [citation needed] tag
 * "one of the famous badminton stadiums in AP" - write out "AP"
 * "Railway sports stadium" - is this a proper name? Then it should be capitalized.


 * External links
 * "Vijayawada Kanakadurgamma temple official website" - is this necessary?


 * Intro/lead
 * "Y-grade city" - meaning?
 * Instead of a list of statistics I'd prefer to see more summary (see MOS:LEAD). Intro can definitely be longer. All major subsections of the article should be touched on: geography, demographics, culture, etc.
 * As a result references are not necessary here, if the information is a summary of the body of the article (which it should be)


 * Infobox
 * "Etymology: Vishākhā" - don't know what this means/refers to.
 * "Founded by Arjuna" - isn't Arjuna a religious figure, not a historical person?
 * "Named for Victory" - doesn't sound right; namesake often refers to a person/object rather than something abstract
 * There's no source for the list of MLAs, and this information doesn't appear in the body of the article.
 * The elevation reference doesn't appear reliable - it cites Wikipedia in some areas.


 * Images
 * This picture looks like a copyright violation.

Great work overall and referencing is in good shape generally. There are some minor grammar, conversion, etc. issues that can be fixed easily with a careful review of the article. — Sunnya343&#9992; (háblame • my work) 19:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)