Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kolkata/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
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 kept by Dana boomer 16:45, 29 March 2012 [1].

Kolkata edit

Review commentary edit

Kolkata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Dwaipayanc, Nichalp, Wikiproject India, West Bengal WikiProject, Indian Cities
Version at start of this FAR

I am nominating this featured article for review because...After so long periods from 2006 this article should be review. - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 03:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main concern lies with FA Criteria 1(a), (b), (c), 2 (c) and 3. The article in its current condition needs serious efforts to restore the quality. Major part of the article need clean up with proper citation and appropriate use of images. Amartyabag TALK2ME 09:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with the concerns, the notice went onto the talk page of the article on 6 November. That might not be long enough to permit discussion of these issues on the article's talk page in advance of FAR. Obviously, I defer to Dana or Nikkimaria on this point. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had intended to wait at least two weeks before nominating, after the notice I gave. But maybe the current condition of the article warrants a FAR. Brad (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think at minimum a week for the talk-page step is warranted, despite the condition of the article, so this review is on hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment - After over a week on hold, few (or none) of the deficiencies have been addressed. It looks like there have been a lot of edits made in the intervening time, mostly by a new user, but many of these have added more unsourced comment. Also, the deficiencies identified by the banners and in-line tags on the article have not been dealt with. Due to this, I am taking the review off hold, to proceed per the date in my signature. Dana boomer (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • 1a: The prose is in need of copyediting
  • 1c: There are many paragraphs and even entire sections of the article that are lacking citations, there are several dead links to sources
  • MoS: There are major problems with WP:IMAGE and WP:LINK
  • This is all I'm going to list at this time. If serious work begins I will comment further. Right now this article is a disaster and I'm not going to expend the effort of a full review. Brad (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. Could you provide a couple of examples of image and link issues? --regentspark (comment) 13:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Image problems are "sandwiching" where a photo on each side of the screen has text between them. Another issue is stacking, where several photos are lined up on one side of a section. The article is overlinked; the best example of this would be the last few paragraphs of the Education section where the paragraphs are almost solid blue with links. Reduce wikilinks throughout the article. Brad (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are image sandwiching and image stacking considered bad things? This is easy to remedy but I personally don't see it as a problem. If someone else can confirm that this is a FA 'no no', I'll fix it. Agree about the over linking and will see if I can reduce the blue in the article. --regentspark (comment) 19:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IMAGE is a part of the Manual of style. FA articles should adhere to the MOS. Specifically look at Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Formatting. If this were only a minor problem I'd overlook it but there are just too many photos in the article. Once this is fixed then I will check their copyright status. Brad (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As nominator of the article when it became a featured article and a major contributor, I feel I may try to do some work on it now. Unfortunately I became aware of FAR just today, as I did not log in Wikipedia for past several weeks. I see work has already been started by several editors. However, the article, as pointed out by other editor, is in poor shape, and would need quite a lot of work. May I ask to kindly allow a good period of time? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request Being away from significant editing lately, I have forgotten this, so requesting. Is there any method that would help in identifying deadlinks automatically, such as running some bot? Can anyone please do that for this article? Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This tool is good for identifying dead links, as well as links with other issues. It looks like there are several dead links currently in the article. Dana boomer (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update Work has been started, although slowly. --Dwaipayan (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I think I've fixed all the dead links (the ones I could find with Dana boomer's tool). --regentspark (comment) 13:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update Almost 100 new citations has been added, only appropriate images has been added, copyedited in parts, other necessary edits done. Amartyabag TALK2ME 05:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It looks like a huge amount of cleanup work has been done on the article over the past couple of weeks. Could we get some thoughts from the reviewers as to what more (if anything) is needed. Comments would especially be appreciated on whether the original research banner at the top of the article can be removed. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reliable sources are still a problem. Citing Britannica cannot be considered high-quality source; especially the 1911 version. A lot of sources are taken from the object itself such as universities etc. The article has an overall problem with being little more than a disguised list for universities, hospitals, businesses and transportation and persons of academia. Brad (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I'll see if I can remove all britannica references but will have to wait till after the holidays for offline references. --regentspark (comment) 02:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the list of universities, I would like to draw your attention that most of the institutions (in the earlier list) have been conferred a status of either state or national importance or is considered to be the best in the Country(due citations will be provided like Rankings by Notable/reputed magazines/Official statements). Please vote for or against this inclusion. Amartyabag TALK2ME 08:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get an update here, please? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Although a significant amount of work has been completed on this article during the course of the review, there are still quite a few concerns above that have not been addressed. I am moving this to the FARC section in the hopes of restarting work on this article and getting some more input from the various parties involved. Dana boomer (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To expand on my comment above about concerns not addressed, here is what I saw in a quick look through the article:

  • Still a significant amount of text sandwiching between images.
Could not understand this comment. Do you mean, some images need to be removed?? Amartyabag TALK2ME 05:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed number of images and text sandwiching. If you have issue with a particular image or images of a particular section, please specify. Amartyabag TALK2ME 16:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several refs to Britannica - in general, this is not a high quality reliable source.
  • Inconsistent reference formatting - see the difference between refs 185 and 186 (both to the Times of India) for example.
  • Unreliable refs - for example, what makes ref #180 (Iloveindia) a reliable source?

Like I said, these were just things that I saw mentioned above that I noticed were still present in the article. Dana boomer (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist unless the issues can be addressed. Just in skimming through, I found the following:

  • File:Kolkata transport.jpg is captioned as "Calcutta in 1852"; I don't think they had modern color photography in that era. (I'll note that the photo is duplicated in the "Transport" section.)
    Removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amartyabag (talk • contribs) 05:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Alipore Park Place 'BelAir' (1).jpg is missing caption (I think it's been added as alt text instead)
    Removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amartyabag (talk • contribs) 05:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a cute little mini infobox in the "Civic administration" section that's duplicating content listed in the main infobox. I'm not sure about this, and my gut says to remove it.
    The mini infobox gives info about the other key officials, which are not mentioned in the main infobox. Amartyabag TALK2ME 05:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The portal box lists the portals in city, country, sub-national region order. Could we at least get them in city, region, country order so it's geographically logical?
    Rearranged Amartyabag TALK2ME 05:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought things like {{IndicText}} went up near the top of the article?
  • In looking at the navboxes at the bottom, the one for the geographic coordinates isn't needed. The infobox already lists the coordinates, and they're repeated in the title space as well as inline in the text of the article. Removing that would then reduce the article down to 4 navboxes, which is probably few enough to remove the wrapper around them.
    Removed the geo coordinate. Wrapper used to prevent unnecessary cluttering. Amartyabag TALK2ME 05:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We also have a Commons link in the list of External links and one over in the sister projects box. Again, the duplication isn't needed.
    Removed. Amartyabag TALK2ME 05:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking in depth now, but the references need some updating.
    • Footnote 2 has a newspaper name unitalicized.
       Done. AshLin (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several citations have author in "First Last" instead of "Last, First" order. One or the other, but not both, please. (I would understand if these were non-Western style names, but "Ian Black" isn't exactly foreign-looking to this American.)
       Done. AshLin (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We also have shortened footnotes referencing longer works without page numbers. (Why are they also appearing in parentheses? It's not a big deal, just very different.)
    • Footnote 108 appears to be linked to an Excel spreadsheet, but there's no indication of that other than the icon I'm getting. (I forget if I have something set up to force those to appear for some less common file types, or if that's standard now.)
       Done. Amartyabag TALK2ME 16:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plenty of online sources are missing access dates. If they were purely convenience links (like to an online copy of a book being hosted at Google Books) that would be fine, but these are online-only sources lacking the dates.
       Done. I have tried to correct all the missing dates and format types, if any has been left out, kindly point it out. Amartyabag TALK2ME 16:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please audit all of the references, not just the ones I called out. I didn't go through all of them.
  • The Bibliography and Further reading sections should look more consistent. FR is using {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} to produce columns similar to the footnotes list; B should use the same templates, even if left as one column. That way the type sizes will match.
  • In the very first sentence, it says "generally spelled Calcutta". I thought that the city was renamed? If it was renamed, then it's not really an alternate spelling, is it?
  • changed it to "earlier Calcutta". Though the name of the article is debatable and consistently objected. For more see the Talk Page. Amartyabag TALK2ME 13:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says it's on "the Hooghly River,[7]", but the body says that it's on "the River Hooghly". Which is it, and why is the location cited in the lead? (That's not a controversial detail that would really warrant citation in the lead when it's repeated in the body.
    Done away with the inconsistency. Amartyabag TALK2ME 13:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the entries in the infobox have really small type compared to the others. The sizes should be more consistent; the smallest is hard to read frankly.
    The infobox is a common one for all Indian settlements and it has complex syntaxing. The issue regarding small fonts can be addressed only at the discussion in the template talk page. Amartyabag TALK2ME 05:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just through skimming the layout and the lead. Based on the lead, There's prose issues in need of a good copy edit. There's layout issues in need of reduced photos. I've never seen such a visually busy article. I think there's too much here to salvage at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 17:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Copyedit has been done by User:Miniapolis and User:Dwaipayanc. Reduced number of images. Selection of images for culture section pending for vote and consensus. Amartyabag TALK2ME 15:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The number of images in Culture section is too many. It should not be more than three, considering the length of the section.
We sincerely thank reviewers for giving constructive feedback. We expect more feedbacks. My only request would be to allow some more (substantial) time to work on the article. I understand that the FAR was started more than two months ago, but some more time would be greatly appreciated. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: The editors who are working on the article are requested to find out reliable sources/third party sources for the following footnotes: 13,18,19, 35,42,47,90,113,123, 166, and 204. Either these footnotes are from unreliable sources or are self references. Amartyabag TALK2ME 05:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dwaipayanc, what a pleasure to see you and Saravask at work restoring this article! How can I ever repay you for the early work you did to get Tourette syndrome on the road to FA years ago :) There's a mess above, with never a clear delineation of the work to be done. I see you're both hard at work: how can I help? Should I do a MOS review once you finish, or are there other ways I can help? Collapsed text boxes should be removed, and I do agree there is some visual clutter in the article-- you might want to reduce images. Amartyabag, listing footnote numbers isn't helpful, since they change as the article changes. If you need help locating sources, that would be better placed on article talk, so as not to clutter the FAR. The purpose of the FAR is to determine if the article meets or doesn't meet WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sandy! Pleasure to meet you, too! I think we have some idea to work on. Saravask, Amartyabag, AshLin, Regents Park - many editors are trying to salvage it. Copyditing, prose improvement, reference improvement are going on. I am not in regular touch with certain things such as MoS. It will be great if you do an MoS review. However, I do not know when you should do that -- now, or, later. May be you can help now. Also, you mentioned collapsed text boxes, please do what you think is needed. Improvement of visual clutter will be greatly appreciated. We are very hopeful that this FARC will end in a positive note, especially with many experienced editors involved and genuinely interested. Your help is immensely appreciated. Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed boxes removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To do edit
To do, from this version:
  1. Population numbers in lead and in Demographics section and in Census table all disagree-- need to be synced and include "As of" date. (I am not going to work on the "Demographics" section yet, because it needs to updated, synced with the lead, and "as of" dates are needed.
  2. Education: Kolkata is home to seventeen universities, colleges, and autonomous institutions. The colleges are each affiliated with a university or institution based either in Kolkata or elsewhere in India. The University of Calcutta, founded in 1857, is the oldest modern university in India; it has 171 affiliated colleges.[195][196][197] Which citation applies to 17 universities, and why does the 171 need three citations?
  3. In general, better attention to "as of" on data that may become dated is needed-- I've found several, pls check throughout.
  4. Culture:
    • Is there not an image more representative of Kolkata culture than the "small magazine stall at book fair"?
    • Not what the source says, please rephrase, remember to give date context: The city had a tradition of political graffiti depicting everything from outrageous slander to witty banter and limericks, caricatures and propaganda, but graffiti was banned by the Election Commission of India.
    • WP:SEASONS fix needed here: ... Durga Puja, in the autumn, ...
    • Non-English words should be in WP:ITALICS-- I'm catching a lot, but missing some, review throughout is needed.
  5. Citations:
    • This needs a language icon: Caudhurī, Bhabānī Rāẏa (2006). Baṅgīẏa Sābarṇa kathā, Kālīkshetra Kalikātā: ekaṭi itibr̥tta. Mānnā Pābalikeśana. ISBN 978-81-87648-36-9. Retrieved 23 November 2011. This has been replaced by a new ref in English with page number.
    • We reduce caps to sentence case per MOS on Wikipedia and for consistency (some use sentence case now, others use caps): I did some, more needed. [2]
    • Doesn't look like a reliable source, no longer maintained: ["The Asian football stadiums (30,000+ capacity)". Gunther Lades. Retrieved 26 October 2006.]
  6. Samples only-- we need to check throughout for conversions and for WP:NBSPs. [3]
  7. I believe the article uses British English, but I see kilometer rather than kilometre-- need to check spelling throughout for WP:ENGVAR-- I don't know British spelling well enough to do that.
  8. When all else is done, check that WP:LEAD summarizes article. For example, this text is in the lead but isn't really covered in the article:
    • As a rapidly growing metropolitan city in a newly industrialised, albeit developing, country, Kolkata confronts substantial urban pollution, traffic congestion, overpopulation, and other logistical and socioeconomic problems.
    • among them several Nobel laureates
    The lead needs to be resynced with the article, to summarize the main points in the text, per WP:LEAD
  9. Review Further reading section: are all of those needed? Some used to be citations, but when page numbers were needed, were switched to web citations.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck most of the list above: remaining-- sync the lead, address my inlines, address comprehensive questions raised below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Education" section : Kolkata urban agglomeration actually has 14 universities that are run by West Bengal government. I have referenced this from WB higher education department annual report. The report enumerates state government-run universities in the whole state. Among them, 14 are within Kolkata UA. There are other autonomous or central government sponsored universities/institutions as well, and those are names in the following sentences.
Have removed so many references. The number of colleges affiliated is 204, as of 2010, referenced from same higher ducation annual report. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To do from this version.

Citations needed/replaced/corrected:

  1. Note 8. All the inline citations to this note number need to be replaced.
  2. Note 9 & 10 lacks page number. Even the citation is not proper, needs a language icon.
  3. Note 26. Can be replaced by a more reliable source.
  4. Note 44. It is dated, current number with a more reliable one can be added.
  5. Note 148
  6. The metropolitan area is administered by local governments, including 38 local municipalities. - Add citation

#North Kolkata is the oldest part of the city. Characterised by 19th-century architecture and narrow alleyways - Add citation

  1. Note 119. Self reference, need to be replaced by a third party reliable sources.
  2. Note 176. Replace by a more reliable source.
  3. The National Library of India is India's leading public library. - Add citation
  4. Among men Western clothing has greater acceptance, although the traditional dhoti and the Panjabi kurta are seen during festivals. - Add citation
  5. Kolkata has many buildings adorned with Gothic, Baroque, Roman, Oriental and Indo-Islamic (including Mughal) motifs. - Add citation

Amartyabag TALK2ME 02:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I disagree that all of those statements need citation. Indians can opine better than I can, but is there any doubt that the National Library of India is India's leading public library? If there is, yes a citation is needed. If not, it's not the kind of statement that requires citation-- it seems obvious even to a non-Indian. Ditto for traditional clothing seen during festivals-- not the sort of statement that requires citation. Likely the same for architectural elements of buildings, but I defer to those who know Kalkota. In a broad overview article like this, well known facts that aren't likely to be questioned do not require citation. Neither do I see any reason to replace citation no. 26-- the text is entirely uncontroversial, is already double-cited, and the source is not dubious. Nor do I see anything wrong with 148: it's uncontroversial. What is wrong with 176? And I don't see anything wrong with 119 either-- unless this information is controversial, there is nothing wrong with that source. Please be aware that reliability of sources is related to the kind of statement being cited, this is a broad overview article that makes general statements, and most of these sources are fine, IMO. Let's not make work for the sake of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While, I agree with SandyGeorgia, that certain statements are uncontroversial and may not need footnotes. But, it has been my observation that people insists for references even for the most uncontroversial statements on the grounds of NO Originial Research. So, as an extra caution, people may add references. I have striked out the the references for this citations may not be added. Amartyabag TALK2ME 07:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly vote for the pictures to be selected for the Culture section here. Amartyabag TALK2ME 02:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a featured article-- before "voting" on images, please make sure they meet image policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC) hav[reply]

Update. As of this version, no page needed or dead link tag. --Dwaipayan (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm perhaps two-thirds done with citation cleanup, still need to check for converts, NBSPs, italics, other MOS-y stuff, while Dwaipayanc and Saravask are well into copyediting. It would be a good time for others to point out anything else they see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty stats: I can find only one sentence in the article about slums and poverty in Kolkata: is it not POV to leave out a broader discussion of same?

No, I could not access full text of this article through university access. We are using one source (the Health Survey that has been extensively used in Healthcare section) that has some slum data. We'll try to gather more. Some description of slums is warranted in the Demographics section, besides just dry statistics. We'll work on that. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Slums and poverty expanded and has been added in the demographics section. Amartyabag TALK2ME 17:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"As of 2003, about one-third of the population, or 1.5 million people, live in 3,500 unregistered squatter-occupied and 2,011 registered slums." The citation with this line doesn't have the text given. Please check if it was some other link or reference. Amartyabag TALK2ME 17:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Page 4 of Kundu's document mentions 3,500 unregisterd and 2.011 registered slums, and the population living in the slum is one third of the city's population (which amounts to approximately 1.5 million). So, this document does support the claim. In addition, now it has support from another document (page 92), which mentions the population in slum as 1,490,811. So, we are ok I think.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics: In the same vein, the "Demographics section gives us none of the sort of financial demographics seen in the articles of US cities (pick some examples from WP:FA, San Francisco, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Minneapolis, Washington, D.C.-- there is no set structure, but I'm worried some content areas that might not be covered (unless more detailed financial demographics aren't published in India).

I could not locate similar detailed financial demographic data from Census 2001. The full data of Census 2011 is yet to be published.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Health: When looking for information on poverty, I came across this and realized this article has no section on Health and healthcare facilities (that is a major miss in terms of 1b, Comprehensive):

Few lines regarding health care system has been added in the utility section. Amartyabag TALK2ME 06:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a start, but I'm unsure it provides comprehensive information, and it contained a lot of sysnthesis from individual laypress accounts. This source provides a better starting place for looking for more comprehensive medical information (some status on healthcare in addition to facilities):
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On notable individuals, there is a mention in the lead of Nobel laureates, but no mention in the article (for example, Mother Teresa isn't even mentioned). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel laureates added. It is not understood, why a summary article would need citations for individual persons who are notable enough to have their own articles. Would something for which these people are famous in brackets suffice? For eg. Notable scholars from Kolkata include physicists Satyendra Nath Bose (for Bose–Einstein condensate, Bose–Einstein statistics, Bose gas, Boson), Meghnad Saha (for Saha ionization equation), and Jagadish Chandra Bose (for works on Millimetre waves, Radio, Crescograph and Plant science); chemist Prafulla Chandra Roy (establishment of Bengal Chemicals, India's first pharmaceutical company); statistician Prasanta Chandra Mahalanobis (for Mahalanobis distance and Mahalanobis model); mathematician Raj Chandra Bose (for Association scheme, Bose–Mesner algebra, Euler's conjecture on Latin squares) ; physician Upendranath Brahmachari (inventor of urea stibamine, the medicine for Kala-azar); Nobel laureates Rabindranath Tagore (Literature), Amartya Sen (Economics), and Mother Teresa (Peace); and educator Ashutosh Mukherjee. Amartyabag TALK2ME 16:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for example, is Mother Teresa from Koklata or from Macedonia? That kind of sloppiness needs to be addressed somehow. The list those names are drawn from is also uncited: how do readers verify these people are "from" Kolkata? Further, claims made in this article need to be cited in this article-- a reworking of how to handle notable individuals throughout the article is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of "from", now the sentence says, notable personalities who "were born, studied or worked in Kolkata". Is it more explanatory now? What do you think? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no specific published list from which the notable personalities have been selected. "From" has been removed, and "born, studied or worked" has been added. That each of these individuals were significantly associated with Kolkata (birth, significant study or work) can be verified from individual person's articles in Wikipedia. Won't it be too citation-heavy if we add citation to prove each of these individual's association with Kolkata? What do you think?
Of note, in case of artists, the named artists were all associated with Government College of Art and Craft, and that have been referenced from the history section of the website of that institution's website. --Dwaipayan (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list of notable alumni (it has several entrees, and one has to navigate previous or next) and notable teachers of Calcutta University would provide documentary proof of association with Kolkata for most of these notable personalities. Those that are not covered may need their own citations.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the persons mentioned now have citations. Amartyabag TALK2ME 03:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image redo; the article went from image heavy, to image bare, and the infobox is ... well, ridiculous.
Images if needed for any section, please add them from earlier version or request the requirement for each section. Please be specific about the problem related to the infobox. We can help to the extent of correcting missing or wrong info. The design of the current infobox was selected after discussion and the earlier one specific to India related settlement has been deleted. Personally, I don't like the current design. Amartyabag TALK2ME 16:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreation in addition to organized sports? Parks and open spaces? Something? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info about parks mentioned in Urban structure section. Adda culture, jatra (theatre), films, music, festivals mentioned in Culture section. Amartyabag TALK2ME 16:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We now have a one-paragraph section on "Healthcare" (unwarranted unless it is going to be expanded). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section has been expanded, thought it need thorough copyediting. Amartyabag TALK2ME 16:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More comprehensive now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Potential source of data for poverty, slums, and health statistics. National Family Health Survey published by International Institute for Population Sciences. --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source of data and narrative for slums The reference that has been used to cite the slum dwellers has good data an narrative on slums. However, we have to use "as of 2003", as the publication is from 2003. Indeed, on further scrutiny, this document is same as the document cited by SandyGeorgia as a potntal source for slums and poverty data.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining edit
  • Updates: Most of the issues raised has been addressed. Now a thorough copyedit and MOS check may be done and we can go for voting I guess. Amartyabag TALK2ME 04:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will have to sync the lead with the article. There are things in the article that are not mentioned in the body of the article. For example, GDP ranking; Sutanuti as weavers' village, newly industrialized but developing country (dont know what to do with the last one. Probably can keep the "developing" part).--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of this version,

  1. I still don't understand how notable individuals are being handled. First, what is the criteria for inclusion in this article (how "notable" is "notable" to be included here?), and second, why is Mother Teresa listed in the "Education" section? The whole issue of how to handle notable people needs rationalization. To further confuse matters, List of people from Kolkata is listed under the "Culture" section.
    The criteria for selection of the notable persons in the page are Primary - 1)Notable enough to have a separate wiki article with 2)Individual reliable inline secondary citations proving the same in the Kolkata article; and Secondary - 1)Significant contribution of his/her field of expertise, and 2)Have own recognisable highly prestigious international or national awards or was nominated for it for his/her contribution or 3) is or has been an elected member of a highly selective prestigious scholarly society or association, or 4)The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC and his/her work is well recognised as evidential from secondary sources. Amartyabag TALK2ME 07:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Mother Teresa's listing in Education section has been removed and added in the demographics section. I could not find another appropriate section where Mother Teresa can be listed. Is it ok now or we should omit it altogether??? Amartyabag TALK2ME 10:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think Mother Teresa should be omitted, as she has been almost an iconic figure related to Kolkata. Mentioning her activity in the slums paragraph of demographics section should be ok. Any better suggestion?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The terminology of "authorised" and "unauthorised" slums is most jarring to a person unfamiliar with India; does the government there actually "authorise" slums? Some explanation is needed; I may have addressed that, please check.
    You have perfectly addressed the issue.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No idea what this means: As of 2003, the majority of households in slums are the informal sector; 36.5 percent are involved in service sector and 22.2 percent are in the marginal sector, mostly casual labourers.
    Clarified the sentence. Please check.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    More specifically:
    • "Economy" says:
      Flexible production has been the norm in Kolkata, which has an informal sector that employs more than 40% of the labour force.[1] One unorganised group, roadside hawkers, generated business worth ₹8,772 crore (US$ 2 billion) in 2005.[2] Around 0.81% of the city's workforce is employed in the primary sector (agriculture, forestry, mining, etc.); 15.49% works in the secondary sector (industrial and manufacturing); and 83.69% works in the tertiary sector (service industries).
    • "Demographics" says:
      As of 2003, the majority of households in slums are engaged in occupations belonging to the informal sector; 36.5 percent are involved in servicing the urban middle class, and 22.2 percent are casual labourers.[3]: 11  About 34 percent of the available slums labour force in Kolkata are unemployed.[3]: 11 
    So, first, no as of date on Economy, so we don't know if these two sets of data are related. The impression is that the second focuses only on slum dwellers, while the first is overall, but are they from the same time period? Second, the Economy data uses standardized sectors in economic terms, but I'm not sure what the second set is doing. Third, why do we have some employment data in "Demographics" and other in "Economy"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The dates has been mentioned. Yes, the second set of data is of slums, which can be easily understood from the sentences. The sentence has been re-written and wikified for better understanding. The terms like informal sector and casual labourer are standarised terms, even the non-standarised terms, like "servicing the urban middle class" has been clarified with examples. The economy related data in the demographics has been moved to the economy section. Amartyabag TALK2ME 07:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Are there no atheists in Kolkata? I can't get the source to load. Further, isn't it obvious that "other religious minorities" make up the difference? Is this sentence even needed? And why not "make up" instead of "constitute"?

    Other religious minorities, such as Sikhs, Buddhists, Jews, and Zoroastrians, constitute the remainder of the city's population. [4]
    Updated religion data. The figures have changed! Either census data got updated, or, somehow the data were vandalized in the article. I have double-checked the data now. Also, percentage of people who "did not state religion" (may be a portion of them are atheist) has been mentioned now.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The infobox is still ... awful. It goes on and on and on, and what does that map add to the article? Further, one of the reasons that this article deteriorated before is that folks plopped in all manner of images-- have editors here rationalized the use of images here, and based on what? Are the images used the most representative of Kolkata, and has the compliance with policy been reviewed on each one?

I think if we can get these few remaining niggles addressed, the article is within "keep" territory. No FA is perfect, but this is close enough to no longer warrant defeaturing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of 6 February 2012, one inline comment by SandyGeorgia remains unaddressed. The one regarding the pronunciation of Kolkata and Kalikata in the Etymology section. I have requested and emailed an user knowledgable in IPA and Bengali language for creating the IPA for those. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The IPA pronunciation keys have been inserted now for Kolikata and Kolkata, and some other Bengali terms in the etymology section, thanks to User:SameerKhan. No more inline comments remains.Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New to do
  • "According to the 2005 National Family Health Survey, around 14 percent of the households in Kolkata were poor, while 33 percent lived in slums, indicating that a substantial proportion of households in slum areas were not poor."
  • Is the addition of the wording "indicating that a substantial proportion of the households ... were not poor" from the source? If not, it's original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source says, "The overall results indicate clearly that a substantial proportion of households in slum areas are better off economically than the bottom quarter of urban households in India in terms of wealth status."
  • The statement uses India, and not Kolkata, as this trend was present in all cities except one that were surveyed. (This is based on Figure 2.1 on page 23 of the document). So, what do you think? Can we use "poor", or, shall we exactly say what has been said in the source?--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd stick closer to the source in this case, still seems ORish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wordings from the source have now been used.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... one of the oldest automobile associations in the world (established in 1904),[5]
  • A self-citation is not adequate for a claim that it is one of the oldest-- that would need independent citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now a citation has been provided from a 1904 issue of an automobile journal "The Horseless Age" (must be a collectors' item!). The article in the journal says that with the establishment of these two automobile associations, (Bengal and Western Indian) the automobile movement is making considerable strides in the Far East.
  • Not sure if this will suffice. Otherwise, will remove "one of the oldest" from the article. Please have a look. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed "one of the oldest..." part. Re-inserted the earlier self-reference from the automobile association website, in addition to that journal reference. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability edit
The criteria for selection of the notable persons in the page are Primary - 1)Notable enough to have a separate wiki article with 2)Individual reliable inline secondary citations proving the same in the Kolkata article; and Secondary - 1)Significant contribution of his/her field of expertise, and 2)Have own recognisable highly prestigious international or national awards or was nominated for it for his/her contribution or 3) is or has been an elected member of a highly selective prestigious scholarly society or association, or 4)The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC and his/her work is well recognised as evidential from reliable secondary sources.

Here is the list of person mentioned and the reason for their inclusion:

  • Physicists Satyendra Nath Bose (for Bose–Einstein condensate, Bose–Einstein statistics, Bose gas, Boson), Awards/Member - Padma Vibhushan, General President of the Indian Science Congress, Fellow of the Royal Society.
  • Meghnad Saha for Saha equation, Awards: Fellow of the Royal Society of London, Recognisation by peers
  • Jagadish Chandra Bose (for works on Millimetre waves, Radio, Crescograph and [[Plant science]) Awards:Companion of the Order of the Indian Empire (CIE) (1903), Companion of the Order of the Star of India (CSI) (1911), Knight Bachelor, Fellow of the Royal Society, President of the 14th session of the Indian Science Congress in 1927.
  • chemist Prafulla Chandra Roy (establishment of Bengal Chemicals, India's first pharmaceutical company) Awards: Companion of the Order of the Indian Empire in 1911 . He was Honorary Fellow of the Chemical Society and Deutsche Akademie, Munich. He was president of the 1920 session of the Indian Science Congress. The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) honoured his the life and work with the first ever Chemical Landmark Plaque outside Europe.
  • statistician Prasanta Chandra Mahalanobis (for Mahalanobis distance and Mahalanobis model); Awards: Weldon Memorial Prize (1944), Padma Vibhushan (1968), Fellow of the Royal Society, London (1945), President of Indian Science Congress (1950), Fellow of the Econometric Society, U.S.A.
  • physician Upendranath Brahmachari (inventor of urea stibamine, the medicine for Kala-azar) Awards:Kaisar-i-Hind, Knight Bachelor, president of the 23rd session of the Indian Science Congress in Indore, fellowships of the Royal Society of Medicine, London
  • Educator Ashutosh Mukherjee, VC of Calcutta University. Awards:Order of the Indian Empire, Knight Bachelor, three times president of the Asiatic Society, president of the inaugural session of the Indian Science Congress in 1914.
  • Noble laureates Rabindranath Tagore, C. V. Raman, Amartya Sen. By virtue of the contribution to their individual fields they were awarded Noble Prize which is an universally recognised highly prestigious award.
  • Film Director/Author/Poet Satyajit Ray, Awards:Academy Award-winner, the highest civilian honour, Bharat Ratna, List of awards conferred on Satyajit Ray
  • Ritwik Ghatak, Films recognised by International Films Critics, In a critics' poll of all-time greatest films conducted by the Asian film magazine Cinemaya in 1998, Subarnarekha was ranked at #11 on the list.[11] In the 2002 Sight & Sound critics' and directors' poll for all-time greatest films, Meghe Dhaka Tara was ranked at #231 and Komal Gandhar at #346 on the list.[12] In 2007, A River Named Titas topped the list of 10 best Bangladeshi films, as chosen in the audience and critics' polls conducted by the British Film Institute. Huge peer recognisation.
  • Mrinal Sen Awards: 7 National Film Awards, Padma Bhushan, Commandeur de Ordre des Arts et des Lettres (Commander of the Order of Arts and Letters), the highest civilian honour conferred by France, Dadasaheb Phalke Award, More Awards
  • Tapan Sinha 19 National Film Awards , Dadasaheb Phalke Award.
  • Aparna Sen, winner of three National Film Awards and eight international film festival awards.
  • Buddhadeb Dasgupta, 11 National Film Awards and many international film awards
  • Rituparno Ghosh 11 National Film Awards and many international film awards
  • Author/Social Reformist Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar Awards: Order of the Indian Empire, Peer and Public recognisation. References in main article provided.
  • Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay Author of National Song of India Vande Mataram, Wide peer and public recognisation. References in main article provided.
  • Michael Madhusudan Dutt, He pioneered what came to be called amitrakshar chhanda (blank verse). Wide peer and public recognisation. References in main article provided.
  • Kazi Nazrul Islam, Nazrul is officially recognised as the national poet of Bangladesh, Padma Bhusan by GOI
  • Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay. Novelist. Wide peer and public recognisation.
  • Social reformist Ram Mohan Roy, He is known for his efforts to abolish the practice of sati
  • Social reformist Swami Vivekananda Founder of Ramakrishna Math and Ramakrishna Mission
  • Abanindranath Tagore, Painter, Unique painting style. wide peer and public recognisation.
  • Jamini Roy: Unique painting style, Awards: Padma Bhushan
  • Painter Nandalal Bose: Award: 'Padma Vibhushan' Amartyabag TALK2ME 10:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think what SandyGeorgia is trying to say here is not only inclusion criteria but exclusion criteria as well. AmartyaBag has mentioned some criteria here. These are retrospectively applied criteria, in the sense that the notable personalities were in the article even before we thought of those criteria. Indeed the personalities mentioned came into the editors' mind naturally, we did not even think about any criteria, while contributing to the article. This happened, as we (major contributors to the content) have some existing knowledge already about the city and their notable residents.
However, this is not the case for someone who is not acquainted to the city. systemic bias may also play a role in this, as a popular rock band in some US city is more well-known name than a nineteenth century poet in Bengal, although the contribution to the local culture is more significant in the case of the latter. To maintain transparency and neutrality, it is expected that we can utilize some criteria. Unfortunately there is not really any published list of notable Kolkatans which we are following here. And admittedly, there may be other persons who meet the criteria but are not included yet in the article.
What I want to say here is probably we can follow the criteria mentioned by AmartyaBag, as I do not know if there exists any suggested guidelins in Wikipedia for inclusion of notable personalities in a city article. As this is not a journal article, we probably do not need very strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, rather we set some acceptable criteria, and gradually build on those. I hope we have not excluded any very eminent personalities, and also hope the names so far included have not made the article just a list of names.
If there is still question on transparency, exclusion criteria etc, we may need to be very strict in inclusion criteria, and remove many names, except those who are internationally renowned in their field, or, popular in public. Personally I think the at present the article has slightly more than optimum number of personalities mentioned.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm after is an idea of how you all will prevent the addition of "every Tom, Dick and Harry" who has a Wikipedia article. That becomes a future maintenance nightmare. For example, in the medical realm, we include people who have made a lasting impression upon public perception of the condition. Do you have a means of limiting future additions to those who are indelibly connected to Kolkata in reader's perceptions (eg, no doubt that Mother Teresa has to be there, she's synonymous with Kolkata, but where do you draw the line to keep the list from growing inappropriately in the future)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While the criteria laid down by me is basically a guideline on who should and who should not be added. The names added should be such, who has a higher degree of notability rather than the less stricter criteria of notability. Say if a director or an author gets a say Oscar/ Bharat Ratna/ Padma Vibhusan / Booker / Noble or have own significant national and international film awards / literary awards (say at least 8-10) he may qualify. However, we should use commonsense in selecting who and who should not be added. Eg, a single noble prize can be a sole ground of addition, while a director with 5 National Film Awards may not be added. Further, the names should be added in such a manner that it should not look like a laundry list, rather it should flow into a prose. Any addition of new names must be closely monitored by the editors periodically. Amartyabag TALK2ME 04:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, SandyGeorgia. It will be a problem. We do not have strict exclusion criteria. On the other hand, there are other people who have not been named despite meeting inclusion criteria. Amartya has said an important thing here, that the names should be added in such a manner that it should not look like a laundry list, rather it should flow into a prose. More importantly, the watching of the article has to be more vigilant from the part of regular watchers of the article. Even then, an acceptable inclusion and exclusion criteria would have been the best deterrent against random addition of names. Unfortunately, we do not have the criteria ready yet, although the set of criteria mentioned by AmartyaBag can be considered as a beginning.
Is there any precedence of such working criteria known? I will try to look it up. If not available, we can work towards creating a set of acceptable guideline, with the above-mentioned criteria as a foundation. Also, we will add the criteria (which is in the development phase)in the talk page of the article. Is that an acceptable solution for the time being? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the answers to those queries-- I'm only aware of the criteria in use for medical articles-- but I imagine that anything you can do to keep the list from turning towards TRIVIA (such as posting your criteria to talk) will hold the article in good stead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This will continue to be a problem, as it is nearly impossible to set objective inclusion and exclusion criteria. We will have to consider each case on individual basis :( Please see how is this FAQ section. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have another question for this list of people. How do you decide that a person is "from" Kolkata? What is the criteria for inclusion into this set? Is it (a) the person stayed in Kolkata for X years? (b) was born and brought up in Kolkata? (c) the person's ancestors are from Kolkata? Many of the people listed above were not from Kolkata or even West Bengal for that matter. Some, like Jagadish Chandra Bose spent only part of their education and career at Kolkata. So, the criteria for inclusion should be clearly stated in the article. --Ragib (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As told by Dwaipayanc above, there cannot be a strict objective criteria, the essence of the selection is that the person must be significantly related to Kolkata. Obviously a person who was born in Kolkata, but shifted elsewhere at the age of 5 and never returned to Kolkata may not be added in the main article, even if his contribution very much significant. But a person, who was not born in Kolkata, but studied and lived a major part of his/her life in Kolkata may be added. I am against setting a straight jacket criteria. But obviously a rough guideline which can show the path is needed. I guess we must go for a common consensus on the issue not just for this article, but for similar articles on Wikipedia as a whole. I am posting the issue at India Noticeboard for a broad consensus. Amartyabag TALK2ME 12:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Amartya for taking this matter to the Indian noticeboard, as this a more general problem rather than only of this article. Ragib, you know that this is a very general problem, and more so for people from British India period. We are trying to discuss it in the India noticeboard, please comment there as well.
I propose that when mentioning notable people in the city (or state) articles, the word "from" should not be used. Rather, more specific, and if possible "action-words" should be used in the proper context. As an example, the education section in Kolkata article now reads, "Notable scholars who were born, worked or studied in Kolkata include physicists Satyendra Nath Bose, Meghnad Saha, and Jagadish Chandra Bose; chemist Prafulla Chandra Roy...". So here specifically born, worked or studied have been used. it would be great to have more specific criteria, such as worked for X years, or worked on a project that brought him international award or recognition etc. But again, that is not a specific problem of this article only, and a more general discussion is needed.
To reply the specific example that Ragib used (Jagadish Chandra Bose), although born hundreds of miles away from Kolkata, his school and college education, and more importantly most of his research works took place in institutions in Kolkata. So, he has a significant association with the city.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update edit

The article has undergone significant edits. Thanks to all the editors involved, the article now looks more comprehensive, supported by appropriate references in proper formats, complies with MoS. So, can we please invite comments and also, if deemed appropriate, keep votes :) Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As far as I can tell, there are no longer any independent observors at FAR to enter declarations. So I spose we'll have to do it ourselves. I think this article has come far enough that it's no longer in delist territory. I'd feel better if an image person checked the licensing, but that doesn't seem to be happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who are such image persons? If you can name one or two, we can request them. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per SandyGeorgia. Disclaimer—active editor of the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Comment (on prose and comprehensiveness grounds) I just started looking at this and will finish up in hte next day or two - congrats for the massive amount of work done so far to keep a really integral article like this at (hopefully) FA standard...I'll post any queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the link to Renaming of cities in India is better done from "Calcutta" rather than the "or" as I think the tiny blue "or" is hard to catch, and it is an important link (?)
Kolkata differs from other Indian cities by giving disproportionate play - "disproportionate" is an odd word - makes me think of usurpers to cricket's natural place as the king of sports or something. I know what you mean though and am pondering an alternate adjective. (just wanna make sure we get the lead just right...)

Otherwise lead looking alright....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments some issues have popped up since I last reviewed this.

  • {{IndicText}} has gone missing. It was previously in the article down near the bottom, but was removed. The template's instructions say to place it below the infobox.
  • I removed the leadership table information to the infobox.
  • I updated the population change table to comply with MOS:ACCESS.
  • File:Mchbuilding.JPG is missing author information, and without it we can't verify that the license is correct.
  • The portal links went missing, which is a shame. Editors have been trying to increase the visibility of our portal system, and one of the best ways is to link to them from the articles, normally in a "See also" section.
  • I checked approximately the first third of the references in this version:
    • FNs 2, 20, 53, 72, 75, 76, 77, 79, 83 lack a location for the newspaper. Other papers that don't have their cities integrated into their names have locations listed.
      Locations are only listed where there is ambiguity; listing those commonly known would be tedious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sandy, the key is consistency. Now, my personal habit has been to always list a newspaper's location if the city name is not part of the paper's name, without exception. This article is listing the location half of the time, and not listing it half of the time, with the same paper. If the editors don't want to list a location if they judge a specific paper name not to be ambiguous, then fine, but don't list it half of the time and not the other half of the time. Imzadi 1979 → 07:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • We will not be adding location name to papers which doesn't have any ambiguity that includes Times of India and The Hindu. However for newspapers like Statesman, Tribune, Indian Express, New Indian Express, Pioneer, The Telegraph (in this case we will use Calcutta, India instead of Kolkata as they use Calcutta) we will use location. We will have to remove the inconsistency.Amartyabag TALK2ME 14:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • FNs 5, 8, 24, 46, 63, 65 lack the PDF indication.
    • The article is inconsistent about listing the publication location for books; either they all should have locations or they all should not.
      • All book sources now have location of publishers.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 9: what makes http://www.calcuttaweb.com/ a high-quality WP:RS?
    • FN 11 has "Private Limited (Pvt.Lmt)" as part of the publisher. Why do we need the abbreviation? Traditionally, aren't things like "Ltd.", "Co.", and the like omitted in citations anyway?
    • FN 12 has "OCF, UC Berkeley" as the publisher. Can you spell out what this means? (As an American, I know that the "UC Berkeley" portion stands for the "University of California at Berkeley", but not everyone will understand that.)
    • FN 19 lists the retrieval date as "25 january 2011"; shouldn't the month be capitalized?
    • FN 28 lacks a publisher or work name.
    • FN 30 lacks a publisher or work name and a retrieval date.
    • FN 49 could be better formatted using {{cite map}}.
    • FNs 73, 81 have the newspaper names and locations formatted differently, and inconsistently, from the other paper citations.
      • I fixed "The Telegraph" citation (number 73 in your version). However, I did not understand what is wrong with number 81 which reads : Raja Mohan, C. (16 July 2007). "A foreign policy for the East". The Hindu (Chennai, India). Can you please tell what is missing here?--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the previous version, it was Raja Mohan, C. (16 July 2007). "A foreign policy for the East". Chennai, India: The Hindu. Retrieved 18 September 2007. The newspaper name was not in italics, which means it was in the "publisher" field, not the work or newspaper fields (the names are synonymous). Also, a publisher appears after the location, and if a work/newspaper is also indicated, the location and/or publisher appear in parentheses. Imzadi 1979 → 07:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 84: what makes this a high-quality WP:RS?
      • Nothing. Removed. There are two other references for that sentence.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 91 has the television network name in italics; for television, the network would be the publisher and any specific program would be in italics. Other citations to the BBC have the network name in plain text, so this one needs to be fixed for consistency.
    • FN 78 has inconsistent use of italics compared to other citations and a double period after the retrieval date.
      • Tried to fix. The title does not appear in italics anymore. This reference is from a fortnightly publication (Express Hospitality) from the publication house of The Indian Express. So, do you think it is looking alright now?--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to OpenStreetMap does not work, and needs to be corrected.

I'm sorry, but I can't support retaining this article yet until these deficiencies are corrected. Please audit the remainder of the references for inconsistent formatting, and please make sure they're all high-quality reliable sources as required by the FA criteria. I commend the work done, but we're not across the finish line yet. Imzadi 1979 → 03:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked through some of the issues you've raised, and it's a classic case of "too many cooks in the kitchen"; everone adding cites uses a different method. It will take some time to clean up the rest, and the last time I worked in here, text and sources were changing faster than I could clean them up. Before I commit more time to citation formatting, the RS have to be cleared up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Thanks a lot for the examination of the article. We will address the concerns raised by you. However, I have the following questions.
So, is the location thing really so strict? Either they have to be present in all book citations, or none? And also, as Sandy has pointed out, do we really need to have location for every newspaper? Or else, we can simply remove locations that are mentioned now (in order to maintain consistency). Anyway, I will leave the decision to Sandy and you, but please inform what we will do.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the number of different cooks in the broth, it is going to take me some time to continue the citation cleanup. There's a mess in here of different uses of publisher, work, and newspaper (I've never seen the newspaper parameter before). I am not going to add locations on newspapers where it is self evident (Times of India); location was added when there is ambiguity (The Telegraph-- of which there is more than one in the world). I think adding location on newspapers when it's self evident is going too far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The File:Mchbuilding.JPG happened to be uploaded by myself, clicked on the camera of a friend years ago; how do I add author information for that? Regards. --Dwaipayan (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would say that the article needs to be internally consistent with how it formats its citations. It's a good thing to include the location, unless that location is part of the name of the paper. In articles I write on topics related to the US state of Michigan, The Grand Rapids Press doesn't need to have the location of Grand Rapids, Michigan, specified in the citation, while The Mining Journal published in Marquette, Michigan, would. If you're including the publication location on half of the book citations, but not the other half, it doesn't look as polished and professional.
Now, as for the RS issue, I only looked through the citations for footnotes 1–91. Footnotes 92–252 still need to be checked for consistency, and the publishers need to be double checked to make sure they're all high-quality reliable sources.
  • FN 123 is cited to indiadisasters.org. Any idea who this group is? The website is no longer active, and it's hard to judge the reliability from what's archived.
  • Could not establish reliability. Removed this source. Replaced with newspaper report of 2012. Removed annual fire calls data, as it was not available. --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 129 is a fansite. This probably fails WP:RS on its own and needs to be replaced.
  • FN 135 is ilovekolkata.in. Probably also needs to be scrutinized.
  • Removed. The sentence has two RS references already.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 220 looks like a fansite, but the domain registration has expired.—Removed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 228 could also be a fanstite. Please verify this is a RS. The same goes for FN 229.
  • Removed, replaced the cricket site with ESPNCricInfo (which is a reliabvle source for cricket staistics).--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 252 should also be evaluated. It might be a RS, but is it high quality?
  • Hmm, it may or may not be quality, difficult to tell. I have added a reference from a general article on field hockey's history in Kokata that came out in The Telegraph (Kolkata). This article mentions the starting year of the tournament. I have not removed the bharatiyahockey.org reference though.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the remainder of the sources I saw that need to be checked for reliability and quality. Imzadi 1979 → 04:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, most graphics now have description pages that are formatted using the {{information}} template, which has spaces for the description, source, date, author, etc. You don't need to do that, but you do need to edit the file description page to indicate that you're the author of the photo so we know who released the photo into the public domain. Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'll be offline until the middle of this next week because of real-life commitments. I will be unable to reply, but there are enough items detailed in only a third of the footnotes and still two thirds of the citations to be checked for formatting consistency. I'll reply to any follow up questions when I return. Imzadi 1979 → 07:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question What do we mention as the location for newspapers that are simultaneously printed in different cities in India? The Economic Times would be an example. Do we mention Mumbai as its location (the headquarters), or, just mention India? Some newspapers, although printed in multiple locations, are primarily known to be based in one city (The Hindu in Chennai, or, The Telegraph in Kolkata) The problem is newspapers that are more pan-Indian in nature. Any ideas? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Generally the pan-Indian newspaper takes out different editions for different cities, and for such newspaper adding a location would be a problem, as the internet version may not be clear regarding the edition in which the article was published. The key would be to maintain consistency. We can use only "India" as location for newspapers which have a pan-India publication like Economic Times and are ambiguous. For TOI and the Hindu, we won't be using any location as they are not ambiguous. Please wait for few days before changing and get few more comments. Amartyabag TALK2ME 02:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update Locations of publishers for all book sources have now been given in the article. However, newspaper sources have not been updated, as we are not sure about the strategy (please see the above two comments by me and Amartyabag). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral on this issue so long as the citations are consistently following some rule. When I last reviewed the article, it was not following any kind of rule on when newspaper publication locations were included or omitted. As a general rule, I use the location of the headquarters, not the printing facility, when including the location. In short: formulate some rule on what gets locations, what doesn't, and which location is used, and then apply it to all citations consistently. Anything less looks sloppy and it isn't our best work. Imzadi 1979 → 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the main editors have decided to add location of all newspaper sources to maintain consistency. This will be done shortly. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Location update. Locations for the publishers for all book sources, and location for all newspaper and news magazine sources have been given in the article (unless something missed my eyes). For pan-Indian newspapers, headquarters / main office location have been used. In some cases, name of the country follows the name of the city. The name of the country has been used when the name of the place was thought to be either ambiguous or when it was thought the name of the place may be lesser known. London is followed by UK, as there may be ambiguity with London, Ontario, Canada. Journal references do not mention location. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

London doesn't need disambiguation. The British city is the primary topic, so there's no need to distinguish it from the Canadian one. I would reverse that decision then. Imzadi 1979 → 21:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, UK following London in location parameters have been removed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Calcutta doesn't disambiguation either, but shouldn't that be Kolkata for consistency with the title of the article? Another point, but per the MOS, the abbreviation for the United States is "US", not "USA" except when an organization or direct quote uses it. I would remove "India" after Chennai as well. If the Wikipedia article doesn't need that disambiguation, why does the citations in a Wikipedia article need it? Imzadi 1979 → 21:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got your point. Will turn USA to US. Will use Kolkata consistently rather than Calcutta sometimes. Chennai, India and Kolkata, India (Or Calcutta, India) will be turned to Chennai and Kolkata, respectively. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All location parameters now use Kolkata (not Calcutta, and not followed by India), Chennai (not Chennai, India), and US (not USA), as discussed above. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again update. Citations has been fixed, with minute attention to location of publishers. Some comprehensiveness issues were resolved by addition of minimal but relevant materials. Please comment. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference spatialchange was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Ganguly, Deepankar. "Hawkers stay as Rs. 265 crore talks". The Telegraph, 30 November 2006. Retrieved 16 February 2008. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference kundu was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Kolkata/archive1&oldid=1083676282"