Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gangtok

Gangtok

Self nom: I am resubmitting this article, a town in the Himalayas, for FA status. It lost in January, (see the archive here.) I've fixed the objections and also allowed the article to gather dust for about five months. Suggestions and constuctive objections will be appreciated and promptly be taken care of. :)  =Nichalp (Talk)= 10:06, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Informative article. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 10:38, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Mild oppose. I request that the person archiving this to have a look at Jun-Dai's comments before archiving, and not just count on the number of support votes alone. Edit: Most of my concerns have been addressed by Nichalp - excellent job! The only problem left is the unreliable references used in the article. This clearly does not meet the reliability requirement in the featured article criteria (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Edit: Article is now much better and looks less like a tourist brouchure. Kudos to Nichalp for the excellent work done. I am going to refrain from added a support vote although it does meet FA criteria, because I feel this article can achieve much more. I have made some copyedits to the numerous minor mistakes I have found, and I do hope that Nichalp and other contributors will continue working on the article. Perhaps with some more effort, it would be worthy of a front page status. =Travisyoung= 03:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. Use of unverifiable/dubious reference - Let's not add "references" just for the sake of having references.
   • "site currently only available through Google cache" - Gangtok Times website cannot be found, and a cached reference was provided instead. On top of that, there is no direct link to the cached page. What is the point of adding the reference? Edit: The "reference" did not mention crime rates in Gangtok. It mentioned that crime rates in Sikkim are the lowest in the nation (without providing any numbers) and I assume it was assumed that Gangtok has one of the lowest crime rates. This is wrong and serves as a poor reference. Why not get official statistics?
   • Two references given were tourism-based (Sikkim — Land of Mystic and Splendour and Holidaying in Sikkim and Bhutan), which might give a clue to the point on "flowery"/"touristy" language below.
2. Incoherent paragraphs - Paragraphs start off on a particular topic and end on another. This makes the article incoherent and gives the reader a very "cut and paste" feel. For example:
   • "Residents of Sikkim are music lovers and it is common to hear Western rock music being played in homes and restaurants... The Paljor Stadium, which hosts football matches, is the sole sporting ground in the city." Why not have two separate paragraphs? Edit: Not separated yet.
   • "Citizens in Gangtok are extremely fashion-conscious. The major Indian festivals...". What's the point of adding that statement on fashion-consciousness?
   • "It is one of the southernmost locations in South Asia to receive snowfall" but yet later in the article - "Snowfall is rare, with Gangtok having received snow in 1990, 2004 and 2005 in the recent past" (I would agree it is a fact, but saying that it receives snowfall when it only happens 3 times in 15 years is stretching it a little too far.)
3. Use of "flowery"/"touristy" language - Some examples include:
   • nestled in the lower Himalayas Edit: Not corrected yet.
   • appellation
   • Gangtok grew in stature
   • monarchy was abrogated Edit: Not corrected yet.
   • the lofty Kanchenjanga
   • enjoys five seasons
   • drenched by rain
   • bathing the avenues in various hues and colours
   • mighty Kanchenjunga (note the difference in spelling from the previous)
   • aldermen of Municipal Corporation
   • cornucopia of natural springs
   • enjoying an almost uninterrupted electricity supply
   • well served by English, Nepali and Hindi dailies
   • yet to make its mark
   • staunchly maintains its secular credentials Edit: Not corrected yet.
   • architectural highlight is the 200 foot (91 m) TV tower (I wouldn't consider a TV tower an architectural highlight) Edit: As long as you can provide a reference which states that the TV tower is of architectural importance/significance, I'll remove this opposition. Otherwise, it sounds very much like a boastful remark; it is just a TV tower.
   • built on the site venerated by
   • the hirsute Himalayan Black Bear
   • and other objets d'art. etc. This point has been mentioned before during the previous FAC, seems to me it has not been acted upon. Edit: Not corrected yet.
4. Poor choice of picture - half of the picture is grass, the other half shows several peaks; which is the "mighty Kanchenjunga"? Edit: The caption is much better now.

Until these issues have been addressed, it is an oppose. [edit: Shouldn't this be a self-nomination?] Edit: Please add "self-nom" to this nomination. -Travisyoung 13:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions.

1. This is the google cache link: [1]. I had used the reference in the previous nomination. I've had to reference that phrase from a credible source, else it would be my point of view. I've included the link.
2. The highest peak in the image would be the Kanchenjunga.
3. While, I have been honest to mention that I have used a travel book as a reference, might I also add that such books also detail the history and geography of a place.
4. Removed snowfall in the lead-in
5. Yes, the TV tower is an architectural highlight (I don't have a pic though)
6. fixed:
   • "stature"
   • "lofty"
   • "bathing in various hues..."
   • "drenched by rain"
   • "hirsute"
   • "venerated by..."
   • "cornucopia"
   • "fashion conscious"
   • "aldermen"
   • "yet to make its mark"
   • "objet d'art"
   • "mighty"
   • "secular credentials"
   • "well served..."
   • "nestled"
7. split sports-music paragraphs

I didn't resolve one or two of the others, as I think its a little too harsh. May I also add that its isn't a cut & paste job.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 14:23, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately Travisyoung has not reviewed this page once again, either to withdraw his objection or stay with it.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 20:36, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I have been busy with work. I appreciate the edits you have put in, the article looks better now (less "touristy" and "boastful"). However, there were some edits which were not corrected but claimed to be corrected - please correct these.

The "History" section looks much better now, although I think it would be better if there were good references to back up the points.

I am also concerned about the way Jun-Dai has voted despite still having doubts. "[D]on't like standing in the way of people's efforts" is not a valid reason for puting a support vote! Either support, oppose or don't vote. This has been pointed out by Sfahey as well. It is best if Jun-Dai can clarify and list out his doubts rather than let the article go on featured status. =Travisyoung= 09:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1) I had resolved your objections but a bug must have prevented some from being saved. I've corrected the same.

2) "abrograted" is used in context and I prefer not to change it.

3) I can't provide you official statistics a) Gangtok comes under the Sikkim Police and no data are released for Gangtok alone. b) No credible references available online. This is the only reference available and it does have the state statistics. The low crime rate makes Gangtok "unique"; and has to be referenced. In the article it is also mentioned that the state comes under the SP. I'd vote to keep this reference until better ones are obtained.

I understand your point. However, it is clearly stated in Wikipedia:Cite sources: "Wikipedia articles should cite their sources, preferably reliable sources." Both are guidelines which are a result of consensus within the Wikipedia community. The reference you have provided is a secondary source, so the way to check whether it is reliable or not is stated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Evaluating secondary sources. =Travisyoung= 13:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

4) Here are links for the TV tower: [2], [3], [4] and [5]. I hope this settles the debate then. I don't have an image of the tower, but part of the antenna is visible here: Image:Whitehall.jpg.

The first, third and fourth are duplicates of each other. The second is a homepage of someone's travels! I would prefer the word "landmark". "Architectural highlight" would be more suitable for the likes of Guggenheim Museum Bilbao; something of architectural value. =Travisyoung= 13:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 =Nichalp (Talk)= 10:14, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

1) I've rewritten the crime part and included it below with the police topics. I've managed to get an active govt of India link as a new reference. 2) I've separated the sports and music section before, but it is still marked as "not done". 3) I've rewritten "architectural highlight" to landmark. BTW the tower pc is available here. (The fifth image) . 4) I've replaced the location of gangtok map.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 15:47, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work, I hope you agree that the article looks much better now! The link to the government website is excellent, since it is a direct and reliable source, and it allows for comparison by looking at Sikkim's crime rate versus the national average. The map looks much better now too, the reader can locate Gangtok straight away when looking at the map. Is there anyway to remove the divisions for the state in the India map so that the state of Sikkim stands out more? This would be much clearer. Could the section on the Himalayan Zoological Park be shifted to another section; I don't think a zoo qualifies as a cultural institution. Several numbers do not have the metric equivalent as well. The reference to the posting of of IPS officers doesn't really show anything, you can remove it. Is there any reason for a separate references and notes section? =Travisyoung= 02:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't modifiy the states of India map, but I've increased the font size of Gangtok. 2) I've renamed =cultural institutions= to =city institutions= to address the zoo's inclusion. 3) added imperial units 4) The IPS officers mentions that the police headquarters in Gangtok is manned by an IGP.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 08:09, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Instead of a google cache link, with _will_ expire, why not use the wayback machine link to the same page, which 1) works better, and 2) unless archive.org goes away isn't expiring on us. WayBack Machine archive of www.gangtoktimes.com/2004/Jan05-11/viewpoints.htm

The original link was http://web.archive.org/web/20041121030218/http://www.gangtoktimes.com/2004/Jan05-11/viewpoints.htm it turns out that the http in the wayback machines links is optional, and it still works if you remove it as above which allows normal wikipedia formating to work Rick Boatright 23:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, but the link does not display correctly on wikipedia. I wonder if the talk page could hold the reference instead.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 10:21, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Rick, I've included the link in the references.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:21, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Nice article. However, on IE there is a lot of white space - eg History starts with a five line gap, plus there's a big gap between the first and second paragraphs of Geography (plus elsewhere). Could this be fixed? And in the first paragraph of History - isn't the word "hermetic" rather than "hermitic"? jguk 22:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

'Hermitic' has a different meaning (WordNet says "characterized by ascetic solitude"), and would be the more fitting word in this context. Phils 05:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Phils' right about the word heremitic. I managed to resolve the gap in the geography section. The other gaps unfortunately do not display in my IE.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 06:56, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I am using IE version 6.0.2800.1106 and I have noticed the big gaps as well. =Travisyoung= 09:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My version is 6.0.2900.2180. I guess the bug is resolved in my version.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 10:14, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe the gaps have more to do with screen resolution than IE version. I moved one of the pics lower (two different places, depending on which people think is better), both of which avoid the big gaps in the upper sections. At 1280*1024 res there is a small gap ([only] using IE) in the "City institutions" section, but lower resolutions all seem to be fine. I only had time for a brief scan of the rest of the article, but I didn't see anything that would keep me from supporting it. Niteowlneils 07:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the images at the bottom, In my resolution 800x600; the bear image overlaps with the next section making it look untidy.  =Nichalp (Talk)=

Sorry, just thot I'd try to address someone's expressed concern. The huge white chunks look even less tidy to me. Given the large number of pics, and the shortness of all the section texts, the ony way (other than removing pics or adding text) I can see avoiding both issues would be to put the pics in less logical places, such as moving Rumtek to Media, and the bears to Transport. Or, I suppose, either of those to External links. Niteowlneils 14:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Tentative support I'm not going to oppose it this time. For two reasons: (1) I don't like standing in the way of people's efforts, especially when they feel strongly about them and (2) I think that most of the objections that I have will be fixed as the article gets more attention by being a Featured Article. I don't think up the FA quality yet, however, so I'm going to try to make some changes and comments for improvement during its nomination. See my comments at Talk:Gangtok. Jun-Dai 17:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the Talk page. I will address your concerns there, and try and modify the map somewhat.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:09, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

The map looks much better now, excellent job Nichalp! I think it would look better if dotted lines separate the different districts and the district capitals are not shown. The point of interest in the map is Gangtok. =Travisyoung= 09:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

map replaced  =Nichalp (Talk)=

<Jun-Dai 00:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)>

Some people have asked me to clarify my support vote in light of my concerns. Keep in mind that the reasons I gave for not opposing it were written before I gave my support. I am not supporting it to avoid standing in the way of anyone's efforts, that was simply why I wasn't going to oppose it. Since then, the article has improved enough for me to lend my tentative support. I feel that the article comes as close to meeting my interpretation of the FA criteria without more direct input from people in Gangtok or more in-depth research than is readily available to those that are editing it and want to see it FAed.

I marked my support tentative, because I think the article meets the current standards for "Featured Article". It does not meet the standards that I would like to see featured articles meet in the future, but if those standards were in place, we would not have enough featured articles to have a daily featured article (without cycling them). The article is not as good as it should be, but it's about as good as it's going to get under Nichalp, myself, and the like. Certainly there were articles in the past that made it to featured articles that would never make it now (I hope), and I'd like to think that an article like this would not make it in the future. The standards have to be a balance of where we'd like to see the Wikipedia's best articles be, and what we can actually accomplish given the amount and quality of the people-hours that we have.

Additionally, I have some concerns that should not interfere with it getting FA status, but they do interfere somewhat with my support of the article. The article has too many pictures for my taste--I'd like to see about half of them removed. But at the same time, I recognize that this is different from what others may have for Gangtok as a featured article, and I'd hate to see it held back just because two voters couldn't agree on which way it should be. Does this help clarify my position?

</Jun-Dai>

• Support The suggested changes that are substantial have been made, and the article "reads" much better now than when first listed. Parenthetically, I am concerned about someone voting "support" while saying it was not yet up to FA status. Frankly, most articles get WORSE after they make FA, since unhelpful changes are not as readily purged once they are no longer under the watchful eye of a jury. I would prefer articles be "frozen" until they hit the front page. Sfahey 23:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support Comprehensive, well written, great map and photos, and follows the WikiProject Cities guidelines. Petersam 16:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article. --Scimitar 22:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)