This is an archive of past discussions about Gangtok. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
copied from Peer Review
Need to have this page (Gangtok) critiqued. Wrote a lengthy article on this mysterious capital of the state of Sikkim, India complete with images. I fear that the page is too much of a "travel magazine" and maybe a little too verbose. Nichalp 20:55, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
You're being too hard on yourself. Most of the article is very well written, interesting, comprehensive, and covers the subject from a variety of angles and with the right degree of depth. The images are superb. I think the opening two paragraphs need to be written in more conversational English. They appear to be trying desperately hard to grab attention, and there is a bit of oversell in using words like "cynosure" and "sybaratic" - it makes the opening seem very pompous. I suggest toning it down somewhat, in keeping with the general style of what follows it. The other sections are well written in my opinion. The only one that I think needs revision is the "Culture" section. The first paragraph I think is out of keeping with the rest of the article because it's POV and makes generalisations about the people that is out of place. I mean phrases like "nattily dressed" etc, there must be a better way of saying essentially the same thing. I don't think it's too verbose - shortening it may achieve the result of making it static, clinical and uninteresting. As it is now, it is very readable. There are tiny traces of "travel magazine" scattered throughout the article in the form of a few adjectives, that would be better served by more neutral/generic terms. Maybe some of the adjectives could be reconsidered, but that's a very minor point. Rossrs 11:34, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'll take a close look on the first para on the culture; yes, it is out of sync with the heading. As for the intro, my personal opinion is that all encyclopedic articles need an eye catching phrase there. Pompous true, but it must be truthful and colourful at the same time. Nichalp 20:33, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
I got what you said about the first para. Yeah, it was repetitive. I now merged the sentences. Also toned down the culture part. Nichalp 18:47, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
I think you've done a great job. You said about needing it to be truthful and colourful - I think also "lively" and the style is lively. Makes interesting reading.Rossrs 14:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delightful article. I would be hard pressed to improve on it. Deb 21:29, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Looks very good. I think the pictures can be bigger and the text less dense but that's more appearance than content. I think it's ready for FAC. --JuntungWu 17:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do that, but I'll nominate the page next month as I have some prior commitments this week. I also have some loose ends to tie up on the page. Nichalp 20:12, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
District capitals?
A minor terminolgy issue. Shouldn't it be "district headquarters" instead of "district capitals"? -- Sundar (talk·contribs) 08:38, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Do you plan to write "Gangtok" in bold in the map as requested in the previous FAC? It's been changed by Nichalp.
<Jun-Dai 17:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)> Here are a few things I don't feel comfortable fixing myself:
There are too many images. Outside of the image at the top of the page and the map, I think there should be at most two or three images, and they should be directly related to the city as a whole, and not just an important landmark in the city. All of the other images should go (if anywhere) on subtopic pages (Monasteries of Gangtok or something).
The map is very nice, but Gangtok should stand out on the map more than any other city. In fact, I'd recommend lightening the colors of the map in genera, and then increasing the font size of Gangtok, or replacing the dot with a star or something. It's not currently a map of the "location of Gangtok", it's a map of Sikkim that happens to have Gangtok in it. This is a pretty minor point, however.
How can "Gangtok" mean "hilltop flattened to build the Gangtok monastery"? That's either a very poor translation, or it's some sort of recursive acronym. Or perhaps "Gangtok monastery" has some other name, and it is only being referred to as the "Gangtok monastery". Regardless of what the answer is, the translation should be rephrased--as it stands it is fairly nonsensical.
I'm sure I'll have some more comments. I'd like to see this make it to FA.
</Jun-Dai>
Thank you for your comments, suggestions and time taken to review this article once again.
There are differing views on the appropriateness of having many images. This was also discussed when Sikkim was featured. The general consensus so far is that an average of one *related* image per section is fine.
I'll try and modify the map
I'll delve into my sources and quote the exact meanings
<Jun-Dai 18:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)> Re: 1, I can see how that might be acceptable if there were fewer sections, or if the sections were larger. As it is, it makes the article look much like a photo gallery, and often the related text is less than 3 lines (at 1280x1024), as is the case with the black bear. In most of the cases, the images aren't strongly enough connected to the topic of Gangtok as a whole to seem appropriate in the article. </Jun-Dai>
800x600 is the standard resolution that section sizes are guaged in Wikipedia. A higher resolution results in there seeming less text and images floating around. I feel that the number of images are fine (they are not in excess). Hope you wont object to this. :)
I've modified the map so that Gangtok's location is highlighted.
<Jun-Dai 09:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)> Well, I don't like it, but I'm not about to do anything about it, unless someone else mentions their disapproval. I am, after all, doing this in comparison to other Wikipedia articles. More importantly, it's not just the number of images there, it's the fact that most of them are only loosely or peripherally related to the article topic.
The map is perfect now, by the way. Thanks. </Jun-Dai>
If more objections are raised regarding the images, I'll definately remove some of them. Are there any more issues that need to be sorted out before you, perhaps could lend your support? :) =Nichalp (Talk)= 10:08, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
<Jun-Dai 10:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)> To be frank (I love being frank), I think the prose still needs improvement, and I'd love to see more research done on this. Input from people living in Sikkim would be nice. But I think the article is pretty close to good enough to be good company to the other Featured Articles. If it makes it to the main page, it will get some much-needed attention, enough probably to push it to the point where it is really a quality encyclopedic resource and not just a tourist guide (which is what it felt like before--now it is somewhere in between). Consequently, and out of respect for the combination of hard work, flexibility, and patience you've put into it (it isn't much for a contributor to have one of these qualities, but all three is commendable), I've given my support. In the meantime, I'm starting to eye some articles and article namespaces that I'd like to someday turn into featured articles (Mikio Naruse, Japantown, San Francisco, Italian neorealism). </Jun-Dai>
Thank you for the compliment and copyedits. ☺ The best editors would of course be the native residents. However, we don't have too many active Indian contributors, and people from Sikkim are rare. But I do believe that an anon Gangtok resident has seen this page, as he had copyedited some text. =Nichalp (Talk)= 13:13, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Monasteries
The origins of the phrase "hilltop made flat to build the Gangtok monastery" in 1716 baffle me. The only monsatery built in that year was the Tashiding Monastery which was in central Sikkim. However it is very much possible that the monastery in question is the Rumtek Monastery which was built in 1730. It is plausible that the hill was flattened in 1716, and the construction of the monastery was completed in 1730. See [1] =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:55, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
<Jun-Dai 19:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)> In that case, I recommend we strike that translation for now, until we can find a more accurate one. The current phrasing of the first translation indicates that it is not the only translation, which should be sufficient. </Jun-Dai>
In other words, leave the text as it is? =Nichalp (Talk)= 09:34, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
<Jun-Dai 09:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)> Actually, what I meant was to eliminate the second translation and leave the first one with the phrasing it has, which indicates that other possible translations are out there. But I'll go ahead and be bold and do it. Reinserting a second translation would be fine if we had a better one handy, but as it stands it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. </Jun-Dai>
Flowers
I caught your comment on the flowers. Yes, the flowers mentioned do bloom in Nov/Dec. Poinsettia is a Christmas plant in India. =Nichalp (Talk)= 10:15, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
standard english
Not complaining, this is loverly work, good links, good references, etc, but it needs a line edit. I'll work on it a bit at a time. There's some "oddness" about tenses and some "oddness" about word order.. mostly subtle. still, nice work. Rick Boatright 12:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out in copyediting this page and the compliment. I also caught your query on country-made alcohol. It refers to unbranded, locally made grain alcohol, usually by small-scale industries (sometimes illegally). =Nichalp (Talk)= 12:51, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Economy
is it fair to add that "the lack of train or air links limit the areas potential for industrial development." ? Rick Boatright 12:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
An airport is sheduled to be opened this year. But yes, access is difficult so it is fair to add. =Nichalp (Talk)= 12:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Map
The map Locationgangtok.png original map is confusing. The caption reads "Location of Gangtok in Sikkim. Gangtok is in the orange area, but the blue area is labeled Sikkim. What are the green and purple areas? And where is Sikkim in relationship to its country, which is not labeled in the map. I had to look at the Sikkim article to see that those colored areas are districts. Districts of Sikkim.png
If there is only one map, that map should show where in the country the city is located. Most English readers will not know where a state of India is located. See Kalimpong which is another FA City article for an example of what a map for this article should be.
The map is much better. Could you, however, make Gangtok a little bit larger (it's barely readable)?
</Jun-Dai>
I've made the font a little larger, but that's it; it can't be stretched any further. =Nichalp (Talk)= 08:19, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Excessive wikification of links and "list of facts" feelings on some sections
I just went through this article since it will be on the main page on the 25th looking for disambiguation pages linked from here and other link problems. While reading the article a few problems jumped out at me.
Some of the sections seem to have every noun in them wikified. Every crop and industry etc. I think it is a bit excessive, just because a word has an article about it does not mean that the words should be linked too. In many cases most of the links are discussed or linked to by other links in the same paragraph. (I removed some of the worst offenders). This is a bit better and at least part of the problem is that the paragraphs need to be fleshed out a little. I was actually annoyed with several of the lists of crops that were all linked but if the section was improved it woudl be ok. I am not sure how I feel about the de-wikifying of every date in the article though .... Dalf | Talk18:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The article has the overall feel of an almanac entry not an encyclopedia entry. Several sections (especially Infrastructure, Geography, and Economy as well as a few others to some extent or another) read like a list of factual sentences grouped together because they all related to, for example, the economy. I think overall the factual content is good but someone should re-write a few of the sections into a more encyclopedic prose; currently you could convert a number of the sections into bullet lists one per sentence and the article would read almost exactly the same.
There are a lot of relatively mundane pictures grouped with very short sections which makes the page format very poorly. I went through and resized the images and moved two of them but I think the article could do without a few of the lower quality images.
I think at least two or three of the sections could be merged into other sections to facilitate better writing style and formatting.
I tried moving all the images over to the right and putting them in a table. This meas that depending on the width of the browser and resolution of the monitor of the user the images will line up diffrently. On my computer at full screen and 1/2 it looks ... well ... better than it did. Can someone else let me know how this looks. I wont be offended if you revert it right away I am just trying to get a feel to how to make it look better. Dalf | Talk09:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
What is Gangtok's elevation?
1780 meters DOES NOT EQUAL 5480 feet. 1780 meters is about 5840 feet (rounded to nearest foot). I'd change it but I cannot be certain whether the metric or imperial measurement is the correct one (presumably the metric one is right, but I'm not one to presume.) 128.173.49.4519:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
http://imdsikkim.gov.in/bulletin.html -- weather of Sikkim classification (Met Sub-Division of Sub Himalayan West Bengal & Sikkim) Talks about soil too
"Sikkim became a suzerain of India..." I think you've got this the wrong way round - it was India that became the suzerain power over (not "of") Sikkim.PiCo (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Not NPOV Article
"In 1975, after the integration with the union of India,..." sounds like a Chinese government description of the "integration" of Tibet with China in 1959 or a German government description of the "integration" of Poland with Germany in 1939. The author could have called a spade a spade and simply said that India invaded and annexed Sikkim in 1975 - against her will. Writtenright (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Writtenright
There seems to be an extraneous and confusing comma in all listed population; there are only six digits, yet there is a comma placed after the first. this makes it, at a glance, confusing as to whether this is over one hundred thousand or one million, and on analysis it is still unclear what is intended. I would recommend that this be changed.
I changed the population back to 98,658, but I couldn't find a reliable source online that matches this population number. I found several websites (e.g. [2]) that claim Gangtok has a population of 30,700. One of the websites from the top of this talkpage [3] cites a population of "around 75,000", but this is a relatively old source (2002) and seems to be a rough estimate. Does anyone have a more accurate/reliable/updated source for the population? Lucien504 (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
This report (at page 20) gives 2001 census population of Gangtok municipal area as 29,354, and greater Gangtok as 1,06, 746. I verified the municipal population in population finder of 2001 census. I did not find 2011 census report on Gangtok population.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Gangtok. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Gangtok. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 4 external links on Gangtok. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Gangtok. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 3 external links on Gangtok. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Gangtok. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on Gangtok. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Gangtok. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
