Wikipedia:Peer review/Ladakh/archive1

Ladakh

Kind of comments required

The article has become very long. I am not able to decide what to remove, and in particular, how to summarize the History and Geography section. I have already condensed a lot of detailed material contained in the books I have referred to, but an outside view on this will surely help in condensing the contents further.
Writing style needs improvement here and there. Any help on that will be appreciated.
In case there are any potential POV issues, it would be good to sort them out at this stage. deeptrivia (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have not read the complete article yet, some comments.

A map (preferebly on Image:India-locator-map-blank.svg) needs to be there in the infobox, rather than the satellite image. Pointing out the exact location at the initiation of geographical articles is necessary.
Is Ladakh a district? If so, why not state that on the very first sentence rather than using "...is an area of Northern India sandwiched ...". Also, if Ladakh is a district , it should be under Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian districts.
"The capital of Ladakh is Leh." - regions/districts do not have capitals, may be district headquarter.
History needs summarisation. No subsections. Its too long. As there is History of Ladakh, IMO history section can be trimmed.
Geography has too many red links. Also try to mention if it's in some Earthquake hazard zone
Demographics only discusses ethnicities. Literacy, sex-ratio, poverty etc? Needs citations.
A seperate "Tourism" section should not be there.
Sections needed: "Transport" - must. "Government/Administration"- must. "Education", "Media"-should be considered.
If Ladakh is a district, then there will be problem in FAC, as it does not meet, at present, the criteria 3, eg "complies with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects".--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More: As per Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Ladakh is a part of J&K, with 2 districts Leh and Kargil. And Leh is the largest district in the country in terms of area. So the article needs serious factual corrections. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and More In History, 1846 to 1947 is missing, after long discourse of pre-1800s. What happened? was it under the British? No I guess. What was the status? Did the British tried to get Ladakh? Was the Namgyal kingdom there or was it under the Dogra? What is the status of the Namgyals now?--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

I had requested for a map a while ago, but looks like I'll have to do it myself sometime.
As you correctly point out, it's no longer a district, but is split into Leh and Kargil districts. To make matters even more interesting, let me add that Baltistan and Aksai Chin, no longer administered by India, are also parts of historical Ladakh. Now I've made some changes to the text that's been in the article for a long time.
I've changed that to -- Leh is the largest town in Ladakh.
Help on summarisation of History is the main reason why I requested the peer review. I hoped creating the articles History of Ladakh and Geography of Ladakh will make me more comfortable with deleting stuff from the main article, but I'm not able to decide what to remove. I'm trying, and any help on this will be appreciated.
I'll take care of the red links asap.
Will try to get census info.
Tourism is the main reason why people know about Ladakh. It accounts for 50% of the region's GDP. There has been at least one FA on an Indian region (composed of several districts) with a tourism section (Malwa (Madhya Pradesh)). Must it be removed?
I had a transport section which I merged with tourism. I can restore it if required. I'll try to add other sections if I get sufficient reliable information about those issues in Ladakh.
Ladakh is not a district, so I guess we don't need to follow the Indian districts style manual. In fact, while working on Malwa I realised there's no standard style to follow yet for geographical/historical regions. deeptrivia (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Response I guessed Malwa (Madhya Pradesh) will be cited, as that was also done by you. As Ladakh is a region, not a district, it does not have to abide by the rules in that district project. However, IMO, "administration" should be there since the region has got a special kind of administration. And also a seperate "Transport" - as the 2 main roads (Srinagar-Kargil-Leh and Manali-Leh) are really mentionable routes, as also the air-transport (probably highest in India). There may be some indigenous transport methods still in use. "Education" is mentionable because many prople are taught in the monastries according to ancient scripts, besides modern education. Will follow up later with more observations, if any. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ravikiran's comments

The lead section is too long and contains too many details that should properly go into the body of the article.
Per Dwaipayan's comments, I'd prefer that "tourism" become a subsection of "Economy", as tourism is a major part of the economy.— Ravikiran 09:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment - Citations should go after the punctuation and there should be a space after it. I will do a copyedit when I can.

Reply

Sure, will look into it. The lead should summarise the article, and as the article is very long right now, so is the lead. Both need trimming.

I have done some cutting down on the lead section. I will do more, but please have a look to see if I botched it up. Also one thing — what is currently called Ladak (Leh and Kargil) and the historical region of Ladakh before partition have been mentioned at two different points in the lead. If you can move it to the same place, I think you can find opportunities to summarise them and parcel off to the body... if you know what I mean. — Ravikiran 05:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my response above. deeptrivia (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update

All red links have been made blue by creation of stubs
Subsections of the history section have been merged, and material is further condensed.
Government and Politics section has been added.
Making further changes as suggested.

Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sundar's comments

~~Move all images to the right side.~~ (Beautiful images by the way.)
Condense History, Geography, and flora and fauna sections. There's enough room for reduction by reducing verbosity without removing factual content.
~~The lone subsection "climate" is an oddity. Rename the parent section to Geography and Climate and merge this into that.~~
Not sure if Geology has been discussed.

I'll try doing a copyedit. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nichalp

Copyedit needed. Staccato sentences in the lead and history needs to flow.
[9], Ptolemy [10], &ndashl; suggest that the refs be moved to the end of the para to improve readablility. You can also use inotes.
Agree with Sundar on the alignment of images
5325 m --> 5,325 etc
Suggestion: Imperial equivalents can be added to increase the audience
Temperature chart should be SVG. if that's not possible, at least png.
-15 °C use − instead of the hyphen.
Saw a program on Discovery that the glaciers in Ladakh are melting due to global warming. Can this be added?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 09:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I tried svg, and here's a file I uploaded. It doesn't show anything. I've changed it to png.
5325 m --> 5,325, minus sign, etc -- done
Imperial equivalents have been added.
References to glacier retreat due to global warming added.
Current status of Namgyals added.
19th century history added.
Information about costumes, dance, etc. added.
Transport section expanded, Education added.
Images shifted to right.
More demographic statistics added.
Info about flora added in flora and fauna section.
Info about Earthquake and cyclone zoning added.
Regarding shifting refs to the end of the para, many of them, e.g., the one involving Ptolemy, etc. are notes that would lose context by the end of the para. Even in case of references, sometimes, a sentence is picked up from a source, and is cited as such. If the citation is moved to the end of the para, it will give the wrong impression that the whole para is from that source. What is the proper way to shift citations, in these cases?
Working on further copyedits. deeptrivia (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sukh's Comments

Just minor points really - the article is looking quite good.

Use appropriate citation templates if possible (Template:Cite book, Template:Cite web, etc.)
Demographics not cited (I presume a census link is all that's needed)
Standardise how the <ref> tags are placed after punctuation. For example, most are currently written ".[1]" but others are written "[52]." Also consider spacing after the ref tags. I recommend the use of "...text,[20] text..." and "...text.[20] Text..." because I think it looks better !

Hope that helps. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}
Had only a quick look:

Why not use an infobox from the Indian cities wikiproject for the page?
wikilink Ladakh mountain range, Ladakh dynasty, Tibetanization (sure this word exists?), Namgyal dynasty, Zanskar, Spiti, Treaty of Temisgam, Zorawer Singh, gompas tribe names and all other proper nouns
Buddhism came to western Ladakh via India, particularly Kashmir, — a bit confusing. Isnt ladakh in India? Perhaps reword the sentence?
a lot of the citations are to other wiki articles or wikipedia projects. Referencing to other wiki articles isnt allowed, I believe.
There are a lot of duplicate citations too. Use <ref name="something"></ref> to group all references to the same source. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}09:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]