Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kalimpong/archive1

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 by Joelr31 03:06, 12 February 2009 [1].

Kalimpong

Review commentary

Nichalp and Projects notified.

Fails 1c. Also concerned that some parts of the article plug various schools and businesses. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second concern regarding schools and businesses removed. --GPPande talk! 07:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add comments below under individual sections so that follow-up becomes easy. I am doing sections as I am getting the references via google and so please pardon me for not following them in order.

Page header/Summary done. Review here.

Kalimpong in literature done. Review here.

Civic administration: Politics section merged with Civic administration. Refs added. Check here.

Flora and fauna: Refs added. Check here.

Media and education: Refs added. Check here.

Transport: Refs added. Check here.

People and Culture: Refs added. Check here.

Goodness gracious sakes alive, Pande, would you mind lowering the amount of excess markup, per WP:TALK. This is very hard to read; gonna need sunglasses. Also, please avoid the excess use of graphics, as they slow down the load time. We don't need minute-by-minute on your progress; FAR is a deliberative process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. Removed the excesses. --GPPande talk! 07:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Shouldn't File:Deolo.jpg be either PD or CC but not both? DrKiernan (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Yes, you're right. I had uploaded the images to WP at a time when I was unaware of the intricacies of licences. I have made the changes. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following sections have been completely referenced:- Summary, Origin of name, history, economy. --GP Pande 16:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 1c issue is cleared. Any other points? =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err yes, lots of the article isn't referenced. Also in some places there is a ref at the end of the paragraph but it only covers 1 sentence. Aslo some of the references aren't formatted. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the culture section onwards. Will look at it once I return from my New Year's break. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flora_and_fauna is done. --GP Pande 12:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done quite a few. If there are any that need a cite tag. Let us know. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah! I forgot to mention, I had added refs to Poeple and culture section few days back. Anything else? --GP Pande 16:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a very quick glance and didn't see anything egregious; if there is more work to be done, it should be identified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a lot of work has been done in the past week. How do we feel about this one? Any outstanding concerns? Joelito (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the refs being indiscriminately removed by the reviewer when the article is undergoing review. Problems with refs should be discussed here before such an act. I have reverted it as it seem little less than vandalism to me. --GP Pande 08:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism, sockmaster. The refs don't show "most popular" it just shows that there was a boxing tournament there, etc. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! Looks like FAR pages are exempted from WP:NPA policy. You never proved it either. FAR cannot be discussed in edit summaries. Simply deleting refs from article is no way a discussion can happen. Minor problems with few words should be discussed here instead of deleting the refs altogether. Undoing the hard work of finding the refs is horrible! --GP Pande 09:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note YellowMonkey please refrain from name-calling. I am aware of the previous history between this user and yourself and will not tolerate personal attacks during any FAR. Joelito (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has been shown to be socking via a checkuser. I haven't vandalised either. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did not vandalize but his comment that you did does not give you a reason for calling him a sockmaster in this FAR. You are a good editor YellowMonkey and I am sure you know Wiki's policy on personal attacks so please stick to discussing edits and content not contributors. Joelito (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article also needa copyedit. Examples: "District administration of Darjeeling, which is still responsible for election, panchayat, law and order, revenue etc., also acts as an interface between the Council and the State Government" and "The NH 31, which connects Sevok and Siliguri,[21] along with the NH 31A connects Kalimpong to the rail stations at Siliguri.[22]" clumsy repetition. "Kalimpong assembly constituency, which elects one member of Vidhan Sabha of West Bengal, is part of Darjeeling parliamentary constituency" Definitely article. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided the remaining refs except two for which this link seems to be the 'actual' ref (from where it was taken). Can this source be considered RS for this type of info (media and education)? Thanks.--GDibyendu (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Provided refs for all sentences where citation tags were placed. --GDibyendu (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations. Joelito (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - per referencing issues/citations issue as noted by Joelr31 (talk · contribs), and other problems commented on above by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist 1a/1c YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Concerns have not been properly addressed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove: With Nichalp gone, there's no one here to address the issues. Kensplanet^T _C 12:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support a downgrade I find the prose of the article far too clumsy for it to be worthy of its FA status. Examples abound, and I have started attacking these, of which: "The increase in population attracted large numbers of migrants from Nepal, leading to an increase in population and economic prosperity." is rather mysteriously tautological. In addition, the sentence relating to the arrest in July 2004 of Maninder Pal Singh Kohli appears to stick out as an irrelevancy. The structure of individual sections may also be sub-optimal, as there are frequent dashing backwards and forwards in subject. I have corrected some of these. However, no knowing the political structure of Kalimpong and DGHC, I am not best able to attack the 'Civic administration' section, which fails to give a clear picture of the political and administrative apparatus. Although I do not feel the article is at the required standard, I have made enough changes for now. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. I appreciate that some hard work has been put into the article, but I'm afraid it still doesn't meet FA standards. The prose still needs work, and I'm concerned about the article's verifiability. Just using the lead as an example, note that there does not seem to be a defined structure: the sentences about the military are mixed with details of the location, and in the next paragraph, education and two unconnected sentences on history are conflated together. It should read smoother than this, with each sentence logically flowing to the next. Of the four references used in the lead, three are of concern. The official tourism office site is fine for standard data such as the elevation and economy, but it can not really be used to justify statements such as "popular", as obviously the tourism office is not an unbiased, neutral source for such epithets. The source given for the statement "Kalimpong is known for its educational institutions many of which were established during the British colonial period" does not really support that contention. Firstly, secondary sources outside of Kalimpong are necessary to support "known for" and secondly, the source given indicates that most of the educational institutions (of note) owe their existence to monastic origins rather than colonization. The fourth source, rediff.com, is not reliable in my opinion. DrKiernan (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are stacks of paragraphs where the citations don't fit properly with the text presented either... YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Example?--GDibyendu (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.