Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sikkim

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sikkim

[edit]

I am nominating for the featuring of this article. It is well written, and very informative. --Mr Tan 11.05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Support Excellent article! I once read about Sikkim before, the history is of this former country is fascinating... Squash 05:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting article. Pretty graphics, too. Thc420 05:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article. If anything is wrong here, it would be that there may just be too many images. Jeronimo 07:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done, User:Nichalp, who rewrote most of it in the last few weeks. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Oops! Looks like I'm beaten to the nomination. Nichalp 18:51, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Maybe the layout would look more balanced if some images were floated to the left side. Otherwise excellent. Phils 20:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I am currently re-reading and copy-editing the article and have decided to withdraw my support. My hasty support was inconsiderate: this article was not written by a native English speakers and needs some clarifying before I can support it. Phils 13:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Support the article as it stands now. Phils 22:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Good work, Phil. -- Sundar 06:16, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Only one objection: caption to the picture of the statue reads: "Statue of Guru Rinpoche, the patron saint of Sikkim in Namchi is the tallest statue of saint in the world". Is that supposed to be "tallest statue of a saint" or "tallest statue of the saint"? →mathx314(talk)(email) 20:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, when the above point is fixed. Wow that's a great article. Learn new stuff every day here. 1) Still could use inline citations, especially for any potentially contentious or important facts. I suppose there wouldn't be that many contentious ones for this type of article, but the more citations the better. 2) Don't you dare take any of those images out of the article. They are not in the way and are very well done. The elaichi picture could be better though to show what the plant and the useful part really looks like. - Taxman 22:19, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object Comment. Minor objections to an otherwise good article:
    I have withdrawn my objection, because my points have been addressed sufficiently, but I think it still could use some improvement, so neither will I throw my support behind it. The history section still seems somewhat jumbled, and the prioritization of information in it seems a little odd. That said, it does a sufficient job of providing an overview that I no longer feel I can reasonably object to it. The fact that the references are limited to tourist ones is not good--not because the tourist references themselves are necessarily bad, but simply because it indicates a lack of serious research behind the subject (e.g., a trip to the library). I would like to see the article mature quite a bit more--which it will--yet I also recognize that if the bar for featured articles is set too high, we will have nothing for our main page.
    1. Given that there is a page with a more comprehensive history of Sikkim, the one on the Sikkim page could be more consise and more generalized. We're looking for an overview of the history of Sikkim, and the present overview contains too much detailed information and the overall sense of the history is kind of lost. Something along the lines of "from 1203-1456, Sikkim was controlled by this family/group of people. In 1456, the capital was moved to someplace." What we have now is like short snippets of little stories that don't really belong on this larger picture (e.g., " Phunstok Namgyal, the illegitimate child of Gurmed, succeeded his father in 1733."). What we want is a timeline of who controled Sikkim and who lived in Sikkim, with a sprinkling of only the most important leaders (and why they are important should be immediately obvious, like "John Doe reunited East Sikkim and West Sikkim after 20 years of war," whereas what we have now are sort of incomplete and circuitous details. This section has improved, but is still in pretty poor shape.
    2. The problems with the Culture section, which are minor, are the same as the problems that the Gangtok section had. "Residents of Sikkim are music lovers," is not a good way to start off an encyclopedic sentence. I see a lot of unnecessary redundancy here with the Gangtok article. If the Gangtok culture section is going to mostly information about Sikkim culture, then it should simply refer to the Sikkim culture section and add any cultural details that are specific to the Sikkim section (this latter comment, of course, is in reference to the Gangtok entry and doesn't really affect the Sikkim entry).
    3. "Unlike other parts of India, which have switched over to the metric system of measurement, Sikkim continues to measure elevation in feet, though distances are in kilometres." <-- Does this belong in the "Infrastructure" section, and is it really relevant enough to belong to the article at all?

It doesn't belong and hence removed. -- Sundar 09:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

    1. Given that the article is fairly young, I'd like to see it mature a bit more before becoming a featured article. If the above issues are addressed (along with any others that come up), however, I will withdraw my objection (part of the maturity of the article will probably come through being a featured article  :)). Jun-Dai 00:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Think, it has matured a lot after nomination. -- Sundar 06:16, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Most of the content is done by Nichalp. Well, go ahead and question him more about the article. Mr Tan 9:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • History section is now shortened; it still looks lengthy because of the images. The non-metric measurements are peculiar to Sikkim only and therefore included. The article has been around for sometime — I guess you fold find it mature now, especially after a lot of copyediting. Nichalp 18:55, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
        It is more mature :), but everything outside of the history section is less than 6 months old, and it seems like the majority of the non-history content was written by a small number of individuals, which for an article about an entire state with a population of 500k+ people, is not a lot. Granted, the wikipedia itself is only a few years old as far as the bulk of its content is concerned, but I would like to see a day where any featured article has to meet much more rigid standards, including, among other things, the bulk of its content being over a certain age (the wiki philosophy requires time to function--the "accuracy" of an article is determined by (a) how long it has been there, (b) how many people have visited and contributed to it, and (c) how well-known or well-understood the article is by most of the people visiting/contributing to it). But this is clearly a larger discussion that I'm not ready to jump into (I'm still formulating my ideas). For now, the article is acceptable, but not the best that the wikipedia has to offer, and certainly not up to the standards of something like the Britannica (which we would ultimately like to measure up to and exceed).
        As for the metric comment, it may be unique to Sikkim, but how important is it? I'm sure that many things are unique to Sikkim, enough to cover the wikipedia, and many places have their own peculiarities regarding how they have, or have not, adopted international standards. Also, what does it have to do with the infrastructure? I left it, because I felt that others might disagree with me. I may be bold in modifying or adding, but I try to avoid being too bold in my deleting  :)
        • Fixed. -- Sundar 09:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
        Last but not least, I'm not trying to be mean. I think the article is a good one, and I think that your (Nichalp) writing is good, even if some of it isn't appropriate for encyclopedic content. It's just that I'm pushing for a day when we can say that all of our featured articles are as good as any print encyclopedia--not just in broadness or depth of content, but also in our fact-checking, consistency, and standards of quality. In a few specific regards we are superior to any print encyclopedia (this is in part due to the medium in which we are working), but there's no reason that we can't be better than them in all regards, and that's what I want to work towards. I have learned from the article, I'm glad I read it, and I'm glad that the work has been done, but it simply would not make it past an editor's desk at any reputable publication in its current state. </soapbox> Jun-Dai 08:13, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, u must be a professional editor if this does not qualify as a print version. Do you have any articles in mind currently on wikipedia so that I can refer to in the future; the crème de la crème according to you? I have added a lot of inline reference links, so maybe u can authenticate my claims. Nichalp 20:03, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
<Jun-Dai 21:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)> Crème de la crème, eh? Not especially. The article on Belgium I would have no hesitation supporting for FA-status (it has it already), though it is not perfect either, and would probably need a little bit of revision for publication. What you can take from that article, however, is its comprehensiveness, and the way that each section has its own almost narrative structure. It helps that each section is essentially a synopsis of another entire entry (e.g., Belgian culture).
The Sikkim article, in contrast, doesn't seem as thorough, and it is sort of awkwardly constructed--as though certain sentences were set down independently of one another without any sense of phrasing on a "paragraphic" level. The worst example of this is the history section, which I gave some comment about above. The Belgium history section, on the other hand, manages to tell the story of the history of this country without leaving out critical details (as far as I know) or large gaps in the history, and without ever focussing on isolated moments that aren't entirely relevant to the whole history of Belgium. More importantly, it almost tells the history as a simple story, which is much more appropriate to its format, rather than listing facts and events, which cn be found on the larger history article. Even though the Belgium history section is larger, it probably contains the same number or fewer dates.
Also, the Sikkim article contains too many pictures (this, and many other things, will probably be fixed once it enters FA-status), whereas the Belgium article contains almost none (a picture of it's current leader, or a satellite picture of the whole country wouldn't hurt, but a picture of a Belgian mountain shack would certainly be out of place). On the whole, the Sikkim article seems too much the product of too few minds with too little research, and not enough interest in creating enyclopedia material. What exists there now is some sort of encyclopedia-travel guide hybrid that is in need of a few revisions (especially with regard to the prioritization of information and the phrasing). An article probably halfway between the Sikkim and the Belgium articles in writing quality is the Isan article. There is in that article perhaps an even greater sense that an exotic culture is being summarized for a Western audience (notice how the culture section significantly outweighs the rest of the article), but it is a little more refined in its language and presentation of information. While the Isan article might be more suitable for publication, and is better written, I think the Sikkim article is in some ways a better read.
If this were a serious print encyclopedia, I imagine the Sikkim article would have been written by an expert on the subject--someone who has studied Sikkim, or something that encompasses Sikkim (e.g., Northern India), and they would have done their best to summarize their vast knowledge of the subject into a very small space, while making it an interesting read. I get a sense that something similar has happened with the Belgium article, but not with the Sikkim article, which seems much more like the best a couple people could come up with if they had a weekend of research and some personal experience there.
I hope you don't mind my being frank. You've certainly made more valuable contributions to the wikipedia than I have. Jun-Dai 21:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There are huge differences between Sikkim and Belgium, the main difference being wikipedians who know about the place and can write from the "insider" angle. I tried to write my best on the state as I was there last December and as far as my knowledge goes, only one other wikipedian has been to the state (I hope there are more). I also agree that this may not exceed the standards that Belgium has set for the time being. Its anyway more informative that what it was though, and over time (??) it would match and exceed the print encyclopedias. I disagree with your point that there less pictures would be better; most of the pictures are relavent to the corresponding text (such as the bear, rhododendron, Guru Rinpoche) and as the adage goes speak a thousand words. Perhaps what you meant was better captioning? Another thing that hampered me was the lack of early history on the state. I did my best to add the salient points from the information I had on hand. Lastly I'm glad you are frank, the more critique an article gets, the more chances it has of being one of the best wikipedia has on offer. I don't take negative criticisms on the article personally; to me it means that the reviewer has spent a lot of time on the page and also feels that it is one of the best, once his objections raised are dealt with. Nichalp 21:11, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. This in an informative article with great photos, but it requires a copyedit. While "The state enjoys four seasons: Winter, summer, spring, autumn and the monsoon season." is the only error I saw, some of the language and grammar raised eyebrows. For example "His appointment is largely ceremonial, and oversees the swearing in of the Chief Minister.", "Among the fauna species include the snow leopard...", "Owing to the hilly terrain, and difficult transportation, the state lacks the large-scale industries.", the lack of commas before clauses starting with "which", "Noodle based victuals such as...are relished in these parts." etc. Also, the references appear to be tourist guides, which is not ideal. - BanyanTree 03:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The references may be tourist guides, but even tourist guides have information regarding the history and economy of a place. Since I've referenced matter from there, I can honestly say that the resources are in line with encylopedic information rather than tourist information. Nichalp 18:55, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Nichalp, I have removed your strikethrough of my text. The normal procedure is to state that the issues have been resolved, so the commentator knows to check the article again and modify their own comments. I will do a second reading soon and see for myself what changes have been made. - BanyanTree 19:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Now that is a remarkably better article. Some relatively minor issues that I noticed now that I was no longer distracted by the language:
  1. There appears to be ambiguity about the etymology of the name. The statement, "Sikkim means crested land in Nepali.", is followed by a list of other possible origins. Either one is correct and other are folklore, or there is a real argument and the first sentence should be qualified. Either way it should be explicit. Also, the sentence about the Tibetan name seems to be in the wrong section, or at least should not be mixed in with the various theories about the origin of "Sikkim".
  2. A brief Google search comes up with info that the tribes "Naong, Chang and the Mon" were absorbed by the later immigration of the Lepcha prior to the start of the monarchy. There must be some anthropological research of the people and societies prior to the start of the monarchy. This would not be an major issue if History of Sikkim had pre-historical information, but it looks like the two articles both start in 1642.
  3. There is very little sense of the arc of historical trends or tendencies. About a fifth of the current section should be cut. Also, statements such as "On 13 August 1979, the Assembly was dissolved and the government was forced to resign a few days later." cry out for some explanation.
  4. In "Flora and Fauna": In the sentence "Sikkim is situated in an ecological hotspot of the lower Himalayas, one of only three in India.", I don't know what "ecological hotspot" means and the link doesn't help. Also, the phrase, "perhaps the only region in the world to exhibit such a diversity within such a small area," needs to be referenced.
  • Rephrased. -- Sundar 05:03, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
As for using tourist guides as sources, sentences such as "Dwellings are aesthetically designed" (recently deleted) sounds exactly like a tourist guide was the reference work. It's not so much the validity of the data, as the tone that has to be filtered to be encyclopedic. The recent edits have corrected much of the tone I was concerned with and it's not by itself at an objectionable level any longer.
BanyanTree 02:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have changed my vote to abstain. The article is vastly improved and I like its breadth. However, I am still concerned about a lack of historical depth, which means that superficial questions like "Who lived in Sikkim before the monarchy began and what sort of people were they? and "Why was the government dissolved in 1979?" are unanswered either in the article or its sub pages. - BanyanTree 18:49, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Good issues raised, I'll try and resolve them, though early history on Sikkim is still sketchy. Nichalp 19:49, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
I have addressed most of the above issues raised, about specific dates, the origin of names. I hope that it is now better. Nichalp 18:50, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
The etymology has been cleared up. However, the response to my concerns relating to the description of the 1979 dissolution of the government was to remove all the details and replace it with In 1979, after a period of instability,..., rather than add some background. If anything, I have been moved farther away from support, though continue to abstain. - BanyanTree 19:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I'd agree with most of the above, especially the need for the copyedit. Someone also needs to decide if Gangtok is the "largest" or the "only" city in the state. Mark1 06:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Done Nichalp 18:55, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Not done- the lead conflicts with the text of the article. Mark1 04:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Hopefully, my edit did that. -- Sundar 05:07, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Substantial copy-editing done. Someone else should look into it, as I left some dubious formulations in the article because I wasn't sure what the original author meant. Phils 13:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Way too many pictures for my tastes, looks like a travel guide. Junes 16:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • A picture speaks a thousand words. How can it be said that it is a "looks" like a tavelogue?
  • Support Good article. Some constructive comments: The last paragraph under "History" slightly confused me - who was the Kazi? It would be useful to put in the article what the title "Kampara" means. It would be interesting to know how conclusive the referendum was - did 51% want to join India, or 75% or 90%? I was also surprised at the usage of the word "transportation" rather than "transport". I thought usually Indian English followed British English, but with a few different words, but am happy to be proven wrong, jguk 21:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Votes on the referendum added, transport corrected and the Kazi is the PM (added). Nichalp 19:36, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: How about putting the flag on top of the infobox like on the real country pages? —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:03, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
    • No, the flag is not flown anymore. Nichalp 19:36, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Minor copyediting here and there is needed, but it's already being taken care of by many. -- Sundar 06:16, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support But I don't understand the last sentences of the "History" section:
"In 2000, relations turned cold after the displuted 17th Karmapa, Urgyen Trinley Dorje, fled to the Rumtek Monastery near Gangtok. The Chinese government was in a quandary, as any protest to India would be an implicit recognition of the status of Sikkim as a state of India, which they only recognised in 2003.'
There had been no mention either of Tibet or China to this point, and now we're in the middle of Tib-Sik-Ind-Chi dispute. Perhaps other readers knew who the Karmapa was and why it upset the Chinese? Just a trifle though, in a fine piece of work. Sfahey 04:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Karmapa was chosen by the Chinese establishment as a way of showing authority superceding that of the Dalai Lama. When he defected (or did he just flee?) to the Monastery here, China couldn't lodge a protest with India or ask India for deportation without recognising the fact that Sikkim belongs to India. Eventually China did recognise this fact. See Sino-Indian relations for more details. If someone can add this clarification into the Sikkim article, it would be appreciated. -- Sundar 04:34, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've rephrased the ambiguous sentences. Someone please lookover and copyedit if necessary. -- Sundar 04:46, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have a problem with a passage of the Geology section of this article, which reads: "A large portion of the Sikkim territory is covered by the pre-Cambrian rock and is much younger in age than the hills." I am not a geology whiz, but I do know that pre-Cambrian outcroppings are considered the oldest rocks on earth; this would mean that the hills consist of rocks that are even older, perhaps the most ancient rocks on earth, & worth a mention. Because of this implication, I'd feel more comfortable with this article if someone could verify that (1) this is what the author intended to convery, & (2) that it can be verified. -- llywrch 00:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I referenced it from here: [1], which is an official Sikkim government site. I too have a poor knowledge in geology, but after reading the article on Cambrian rocks, I understand that there were five periods before the Cambrian era, which would suggest that the text on the rocks it is not really a big matter. Nichalp 21:11, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
PS Gilbert Hill in my city Bombay is even older than the pre-Cambrian age. Nichalp 21:36, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
I took a look at your authority, Nichalp, & the relevant passage on the government site is more confusing to me than what is in the article. Both of these passages have the same non sequitor that (1) the land is covered with pre-Cambrian rock, (2) which is younger than the hills. Are we to understand that the hills are outcroppings of older formations? Or that the Law of Superposition (see Geology for an explanation of this term) is not valid here, & that older rocks lie upon younger ones in this area -- which form the hills.
Sadly, Wikipedia lacks any geographical survey of this portion of the world, which would allow us to untangle this knot quickly. Hopefully some editor with geological training could help with this (or side with you by saying this issue is not significant). -- llywrch 00:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea on the rocks to conclude if this is a unique feature or not. I've put up a help message on Talk:geology, maybe someone else can make sense of its significance. Nichalp 18:12, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)


<Jun-Dai 22:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)> Congratulations, Nichalp! It looks like your hard work has been recognized. </Jun-Dai>

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sikkim&oldid=133618549"