Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Geography of India/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 removed 08:15, 9 July 2007.

Geography of India

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at Talk:Geography of India, WT:INB and User talk:Nichalp, Additional messages at India, Geography

While doing a research on Geography of West Bengal, I noticed that the article Geography of India, a FA is in a bad condition, probably it will not meet even the WP:GA criteria. The article was featured on June 8, 2005 that is about 2 years back when the Wikipedia was not much organised, so it got FA easily. I am pointing out some of the errors in the article:

  1. Excess importance is given to the highest point in the lead. Remove it and replace by other suitable statement
  2. Location and extent-eastern, western and northern tip missing, IST must be included, neighbours of India may be incorporated
  3. Political geography – must be written in a prose form rather than list.
  4. Geographical regions-
    1. Mountains
      1. Image:Indiahills.png and Image:India topo big.jpg must be replaced by svg image,
      2. remove list of mountains, no mention of upper and middle himalays,
    2. Indo-Gangetic plain-No mention of Bhabar and Khadar, Terai formation
    3. Highlands-Highest peak in Deccan plateau missing, Central highlands (Malwa) missing, eastern Meghalaya plateau and Karbi Anglong plateau missing
    4. East coast-No mention of Northern Circas
    5. West coast- Kachchh and Kathiawar coast in Gujrat, back waters in Kerela and presence of important ports missing
    6. Islands-
      1. Andaman- seperation by 10 degree channel, barren island missing, largest island, no of inhabited island, longitudianal and latitudial extent,
      2. Lakshwadeep- seperation by 11 degree channel, largest island, longitudianal and latitudial extent all are missing
  5. Natural disasters-Drought missing
  6. Natural resources-More data needed
  7. Missing parts-Soil, Natural vegetation and wildlife
  8. Overall-Lack of grammar, spellings, WP:MOS and must be writen in prose form.
  9. To prevent further vandalism- semi-protection policy must be applied to the article
  10. Inline citations missing

This was the initial observation. Further comments are expected to improve the quality of the article. This must be imroved or get defeaturedAmartyabag TALK2ME 14:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with most of the assessment. The article is meant to be a summary of more detailed article and the chunk of the article has been sourced from the famous Manorama Yearbook which has gone into detail classifying the geographic regions of India, keeping into consideration the core classification. This article is not meant to be inclusive of specifics, that is why Malwa, Terrai and the Circas are intentionally omitted. There are simply too many regions that could otherwise be listed here. There is a SVG replacement for India topo, but the use of svg in such a case is not recommended. I'm also not sure why it is not in prose form. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly try to add references to the text.Amartyabag TALK2ME 11:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to significant citation needs:

  • Listiness should be converted to compelling prose
  • Templates placed incorrectly at end of section (see WP:GTL)
  • Unformatted Notes and incomplete References
  • Image placement results in large white spaces (images don't *have* to be next to the text they discuss, if that results in text distortion.
  • Same strange, non-standard formatting in International agreements
  • Bolding throughout (see WP:MOSBOLD)
  • Is Bengal Tiger capitalized or not (used both ways)?

On the upside, WP:DASH andWP:UNITS have been attended to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, formatting, and comprehensiveness. Joelito (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Very little of the hard data is cited (see Mav's articles of a similar nature). The {{convert}} templates are resulting in an extreme number of decimal places (see Mountains); I believe there's a way to truncate the decimal places to 0 places. There are a few inline cites that are largely unformatted. The article has been at FARC for three weeks; I'm learning towards Remove in a few days if the article isn't cited and work completed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated and Referenced Though the article was highly unreferenced I found out the major source Manorama Year Book (see:ISSN ID on WorldCat) and added about 20 inline citations(note citations refering to same source get ^ a b c d e etc.) and now the article is highly improved in terms of referencing.--KnowledgeHegemony 14:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm my working my way through; pls see my edit summaries for samples of work needed. Capitalization in Natural resources needs attention; I don't know which of those should and shouldn't be capitalized, but there are problems there. Also, please ask Tony1 (talk · contribs) or Deckiller (talk · contribs) to evaluate hyphens versus endashes in Physiographic regions section. I can't work on your footnotes because I don't speak Harvard templates, but some of your notes link to references, while others don't; they should use a consistent style. The way Allaby and Balfour are done, for example, is different than Manorama Yearbook sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This can't be closed either way at present. I'll say remove. A topic like this may be given to lists, but we have too many sections with choppy two sentence paras and inconsistent orthography (the ampersand should be eliminated at least, and dashes checked). And then there's phrasing like this: "India has a varied geology spanning the entire spectrum of the geological time period." What does the "entire spectrum of the geological time period" mean? The entire history of the Earth? Finally, the refs are incosistently formatted and applied.

I know this was worked on and we've arrived at a point where we're leaving FARs up for months. If someone has the energy for refs, I'll help with the little stuff. If not, this should go. Marskell 07:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove. Too long at FAR, too little improvement to keep FAR going. Many of the same deficiencies present as when I last looked three weeks ago. References still unformatted, and still needing a copy edit for basic things like capitalization. Sample sentence with capitalization issues: Along with 56% arable land, it has significant sources of Coal (fourth-largest reserves in the world), Iron ore, Manganese, Mica, Bauxite, Titanium ore, Chromite, Natural gas, Diamonds, Petroleum, Limestone, Thorium (world's largest along Kerala's shores). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Unfortunately, the article really does not meet the FA criteria anymore. May be sometime later someone of us would find adequate time to improve the article and run it for FAC again. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Geography_of_India/archive1&oldid=1138477010"