Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/West Bengal/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2018 [1].

West Bengal

Nominator(s): — Force Radical∞ ( Talk ⋯ Contribs ) 11:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a very personal project of mine which I inherited after Casliber delisted the article in late 2017. I had resolved all comments from the FARC and put it up for GA but the absence of a reviewer led me to take this here — Force Radical∞ ( Talk ⋯ Contribs ) 11:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: — In the interests of transparency, I would like to disclose that this FA review may be used to increase my points for the ongoing Wikicup competition. — Force Radical∞ ( Talk ⋯ Contribs ) 11:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Dudley Miles Sturmvogel 66 DrKay RetiredDuke Nikkimaria-As reviewers who had commented on the FARC. I have resolved all the {{cn}} and fixed the image problems. Please provide a review here — [[ F R ™ ]] 05:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

These green links should be archived.
"Districts" in the infobox changes redirects, it should be "List of districts in India" instead of "List of Indian districts".
Same goes for 'Governor' and 'Chief Minister', fix their redirect.
Kolkata shouldn't be linked twice in the infobox.
Ref 94 is dead.
rediff news --> Rediff.com
Is "parabaas" a RS?
Some refs are missing their authors name.
Economic Times --> The Economic Times

Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yashthepunisher-Happy Republic Day! Please provide the ref numbers in which the authors name is not mentioned.(I couldn't find any with a cursory look).I have done everything else. Please take a look — F R ™ 11:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you the same. Ref 115 is missing date and there are issue with the authors name at ref 195 and 198. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done-I have resolved all comments .Please take a look — F R ™ 07:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the news stories which make up the bulk of the article's references are missing dates at present. Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

Per WP:LEAD, the sentences in the lead shouldn't have references. But, they should be referenced in the other part of the article's body.
At ref 15, The Hindu is mentioned twice. Also it should be in italics.
Ref 17, hindustantimes.com --> Hindustan Times.
The name of the publisher should be written properly.
The book references should be written in sfn format, like this list.
Ref 59 and 60 are missing publisher's name.
Dubious sources like IloveIndia and www.mapsofindia.com, should be removed.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yashthepunisher-All done except converting all book refs to sfn as they would uneccesarily bloat up the Further Reading section. Additionally I believe MOS does not specifically support any particular citation style. Please take a look — F R ™ 10:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support this nomination. Good luck! Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments From a quick review of several sections of the article, I have concerns about its neutrality and accuracy. While the article appears admirably comprehensive, its focus generally seems to be talking up the state rather than providing a neutral picture to readers. I have the following comments:

Many of the works listed in the 'references' section don't seem to have been used as citations
"Armed attempts against the British Raj from Bengal reached a climax when Subhas Chandra Bose led the Indian National Army from Southeast Asia against the British" - confusing and misleading. The INA was in Burma, not West Bengal, and was rapidly routed on the few occasions it saw combat. The greatest period of danger to the Raj was actually the rapid Japanese advance during 1942.
From spot checking some of the population figures in the table in the 'Districts' section, the total population given for Darjeeling and Dakshin Dinajpur differ from those in the source, and the various rates and percentages are different. The date for these figures should be noted in the article.
If I knew nothing at all about India's economy, I'd conclude from the 'economy' section that West Bengal is a prosperous place. I'd suggest adding some material explaining the standard of living.
The sentence beginning "In the 2010s, events such as" is referenced to sources from the early 2000s.
"In the period 2004–2010, the average gross state domestic product (GSDP) growth rate was 13.9% (calculated in Indian rupee terms) lower than 15.5%, the average for all states of the country.[104]:4 The state's total financial debt stood at ₹1,918,350 million (US$30 billion) as of 2011" - GDP and government(?) debt are entirely different topics so shouldn't be presented alongside one another, and these figures seem rather dated now.
The education section is focused on talking up various elite institutions. What's the structure of the education system in the state, to what extent to people undertake and complete education, and what's the average quality like?
Lots of the 'as of' dates are rather dated. Nick-D (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D-Happy Republic Day (@ India).I have not been able to find time to address your comments but if you find any more problems please add them here so that all issues can be resolved early on — F R ™ 11:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D-I believe, I have covered all points in your review. I may have also inadvertently missed some .Please take a look and add more comments. I will look into the citations from tomorrow — F R ™ 07:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

With so much to check, I'm doing this in stages. The following comments apply to the first 60 refs:

Ref 11: Although the archive works, there are problems with the main link which should be changed.
Ref 15: Wrong link – this goes to the ref 14 source
Ref 17: You should give the publisher name rather than the website
Ref 21 and others: Retrieval dates not necessary for links via googlebooks.
Ref 22: The authorship here is complicated. Geiger is the translator from the original to German; Mabel Haynes Bode, not mention in your citation, is the translator from German to English.
Ref 24: citation lacks publisher, page number and other book details
Ref 29: lacks page number
Ref 34: ditto
Ref 35: ditto
Ref 40: Harvard error - Bayly source not listed
Ref 44: Harvard error - Chandra source not listed
Refs 46 & 47: lack page numbers
Ref 52: The publisher is Rediff India Abroad
Refs 55, 57, 59 & 60: publisher details missing.

It seems to me likely that some of the above issues – missing page numbers, missing publishers etc – will occur in the remaining citations, and I suggest you check these out too. Also I note that your list of sources is not alphabetically arranged, and this should be seen to without delay. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton-I have resolved all most your comments at present (I couldn't fix ref 45 as I cannot access the source and have partly done the alphabetical arrangement ).Please take a look. Also I would like you to wait for a day or two before starting on the part two of your review as I am currently experiencing some meatspace priorities and have a lot more comments to resolve in this FAC. Please consider — F R ™ 10:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)For ping — F R ™ 10:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you're ready for me to resume. Incidentally, ref 45 isn't among those I questioned. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton-Well given that the work load has lessened slightly It's okay for you to start on the next batch. Fire away — F R ™ 07:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, but I'll wait awhile to see how the nom progresses. There's a lot of checking to do here. Brianboulton (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest reviewing captions for grammar and neutrality (eg. "culinary delights"). Where opinions are included (eg. "one of the finest exampels..."), these should be cited
Suggest scaling up the state symbols table
File:West_Bengal_State_Emblem.jpg needs an expanded FUR
File:Guimet_Tara_s._IX.JPG: what is the copyright status of the object pictured?
File:Queen_Elizabeth_at_Durgapur.jpg: the description given is not consistent with the current licensing tag
File:Rabindranath_Tagore_in_1909.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 100 years ago?
File:Swami_Vivekananda-1893-09-signed.jpg needs a US PD tag and information on the original creator
File:Satyajit_Ray_with_Ravi_Sankar_recording_for_Pather_Panchali.jpg: what is the status of this work in the US?
File:Bangladeshi_bride_in_Jamdani_sari.jpg: this image appears to have been previously published by UNESCO. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria-I have scaled up the symbols table, expanded FUR, added a Us-Pd tag to File:Swami_Vivekananda-1893-09-signed.jpg, File:Satyajit_Ray_with_Ravi_Sankar_recording_for_Pather_Panchali.jpg and deleted the images mentioned in points 4,5 and replaced the Rabindranath Tagore picture.I couldn't understand what to do for your last point. Please take a look and inform me if I have done anything wrong (This is my first time I am dealing with copyrights of images) — F R ™ 11:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the captions are still in need of citations. For example, "Tourism, especially from Bangladesh, is an important part of West Bengal's economy." is not currently supported by the article text so should be cited here.
File:Rabindranath_Tagore.jpg: when/where was this first published, and what is its status in the US?
File:Swami_Vivekananda-1893-09-signed.jpg: when/where was this first published and who was the creator?
File:Satyajit_Ray_with_Ravi_Sankar_recording_for_Pather_Panchali.jpg: this has a publication date of 1955, so it can't have been published before 1923
File:Bangladeshi_bride_in_Jamdani_sari.jpg: the issue with this is, if indeed it was previously published by UNESCO, then we would need some indication that the uploader had the right to release it under the given license
File:Durga,_Burdwan,_2011.JPG: what is the copyright status of the work pictured? Same with File:Shyama_Shakespeare_Sarani_Arnab_Dutta_2010.JPG, File:Mahesh_Rath_Yatra.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments There is something very odd about the economy section. It is written in such a way that it seems West Bengal is a wealthy, prosperous, developed state. It is not, but is in fact, sadly, very impoverished. It seems the author is trying to promote the state, or at least put it in a very positive light. One example of promotion is the speculative "...South East Asian countries ... entering the Indian market and investing have put Kolkata in an advantageous position for future development". Also, careful with wording "lagged the all India average for over two decades" sounds clunky. I think this section needs to be more realistic in depicting the actual economy before promotion. Mattximus (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done-Will need some polishing. — F R ™ 09:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus-Done. Please take a look — F R ™ 06:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: -Please pull the plug on this nom, I have come to the conclusion that this article is unfit in its present condition for FA and would like to make a soundless, dignified exit through the backdoor. Additionally meatspace priorities are constraining the amount of time I could devote to improving the article quality and bring it at par with other FA's. That being said I will work on the criticisms raised in the nom and will bring this back in better condition in April — F R ™ 09:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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