Talk:Murshidabad district

Tags

Removed the unsourced tag. References have been provided. AlAlpai (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed "stub" tag. It is sufficiently informative now. AlAlpai (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Improvements/Suggestions

Images

Can somebody please provide some copyright free images/photograph of the district? AlAlpai (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Murshidabad district/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

In my humble opinion, the article is no longer a stub, even though it could be improved significantly.

Last edited at 13:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 00:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Murshidabad district. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830065710/http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=kal-baisakhi1 to http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=kal-baisakhi1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405033402/http://www.nird.org.in/brgf/doc/brgf_BackgroundNote.pdf to http://www.nird.org.in/brgf/doc/brgf_BackgroundNote.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928205646/http://web.cmc.net.in/wbcensus/DataTables/02/Table4_7.htm to http://web.cmc.net.in/wbcensus/DataTables/02/Table4_7.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225032419/http://wbdemo5.nic.in/writereaddata/Directoryof_District_Block_GPs%28RevisedMarch-2008%29.doc to http://wbdemo5.nic.in/writereaddata/Directoryof_District_Block_GPs(RevisedMarch-2008).doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719040340/http://web.cmc.net.in/wbcensus/DataTables/01/Table2_3.htm to http://web.cmc.net.in/wbcensus/DataTables/01/Table2_3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060504185949/http://archive.eci.gov.in/se2001/background/S25/WB_ACPC.pdf to http://archive.eci.gov.in/se2001/background/S25/WB_ACPC.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928205646/http://web.cmc.net.in/wbcensus/DataTables/02/Table4_7.htm to http://web.cmc.net.in/wbcensus/DataTables/02/Table4_7.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Remove red link

All red link should be removed Hamim000000 (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Murshidabad district/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 15:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Will give this one a look. —Ed!^(talk) 15:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Fail

   • The lead of the article should more comprehensively summarize the article, and anything there should be expanded on further down. See WP:LEAD for more on this.
   • The Economy section is overly detailed and probably could be narrowed a bit, I recommend focusing concisely on some of the largest industries here and giving a more general overlook of them in the city, any companies worth mentioning and data on workforce.
   • The Culture section is off to a good start but could be expanded. What kinds of attractions are there? What major historic sites? Any data?
   • "Notable Personalities" section can probably be pared down substantially as it's not common to see this section very big.
   • "Educational Institutes" could be expanded and will likely need some detail on the major schools and what they offer, which can probably be brought in from those pages.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Fail

   • Extensive sourcing needed on History
   • Extensive sourcing needed on Geography
   • Extensive sourcing needed on Economy. I suspect this one can be pared down a bit as well because it's overly detailed.
   • Language section has no references.
   • Culture section has no references.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Not Yet

   • "Etymology" needs to be expanded, and I'd suggest taking note of the Joppenbergh Mountain featured article, which does a good job of this. The section also needs sources. Beginning of the 18th Century section could be added here.
   • "Prehistory" could be expanded to explain the early history. When were first settlements recorded? Can more be said of this ancient town located there? What happened politically?
   • The "Sub Division" section could be expanded pretty significantly if possible. How large are these administrative sections? Is there size, population or geography data?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   The article as it is currently reads like a promotion or an advertisement. I would think a writer would need to focus a bit on the neutral language work here. Probably will need major restructuring so the final form would need its own review as it'll probably be very different.

5. It is stable:

   Not seeing any problems on this end.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Some ideas for more images:

   • Any kind of a more detailed map on this region we can include?
   • Cultural sections could use some more information. What's going on with the nightlife? With major events? With sports?
   • Educational institutions could use some photos. How large a business is this in town.
7. Other:

   So based on the above criteria, I would say this article meets multiple WP:QFC issues, so I'm going to have to Fail the GA nomination and allow users to give this article a bit more work. Would be happy to see it come back as some of these were addressed in the future. Thanks! —Ed!^(talk) 16:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

2011 data

On the top of the article, the data of 2001 census ia given. I updated the data but the source was not reliable. Thanks for correcting me. But 2011 census can be collected through many reliable source. Currently I don't want edit the article because Fylindfotberserk knows much better than me. Thanks HamimM7 (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Official website of the Indian govt would be much better. Census2011.co.in is unreliable. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)