Wikipedia:Peer review/Vijayawada/archive1

Vijayawada

I've listed this article for peer review because… of recent improvement of its section and need feedback from other users of its structure and content.

Thanks, Vin09 (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks much better now. I happened to read this article some 30 days ago. Abhinav619 (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vin09, I'll take a look.

Toponomy

• "Goddess Durga killed the demon" - which demon?
• What language are "Vijaya" and "wada" from?
• "The city thereafter came to be known as Vijayavatika and later as Vijayawada" - why "Vijayavatika"?
• Why was the city referred to as "Rajendracholapura" at one point?

History

• first paragraph:
  • "Bezawada (Vijayawada)" is written twice. Seems redundant. Also why is Bezawada written and not one of the other historical names for the city, like Vijayavatika?
  • "the last of the three pitakas (Pali for baskets) constituting the Pali canon, the scriptures of Theravada Buddhism" - this is a direct copy/paste from the Abhidhamma Pitaka article, doesn't look good.
  • Who are the "Pusapatis of Vizianagaram"?
• "Akkana Madanna Caves situated at the foot of Indrakeeladri Hill is a monument of national importance" - reason?
• "Of them, the inscriptions issued by Yudhamalla I and II of Eastern Chalukyas are important ones" - how so?
• The listing of dates is inconsistent: "640 A.D.", "9th century AD", "4th - 9th centuries", "early sixteen century"
• This section doesn't seem to have a chronological flow/order.

Geography

• Source #2 Climate-Data.org doesn't look reliable.

I'll continue later. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 17:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Continuing...

Demographics

• "The predominant languages spoken by the city residents are, Telugu" - nothing else? Any statistics?
• The source "Census2011.co.in" - is it reliable? Doesn't look like it's a government webpage.
• I think there should be some introduction/description along with the religion table.

Governance

• "and was upgraded to selection grade municipality in 1960 and finally to corporation in the year 1981" - I don't see the significance of this information. What exactly do these mean?
• The commissioner and mayor don't need to be capitalized.
  • Instead of saying "the present mayor" etc. try writing something like "Koneru Sridhar became mayor in [year]" per MOS:RELTIME.
• for "an estimated population of 18 lakhs" - Western conversion should be given per MOS:NUMERAL.
• references [2] and [40] are the same
• Any information on why Vijayawada is covered under the Solar/Green Cities scheme? Does it have/has it had pollution issues?

Culture

• "mainly due to the existence of self manifested Kanaka Durga Temple" - what does "self-manifested" mean?
• "housing the holy relic of the Prophet Mohammed" - which/what relic?
• Source [67] doesn't seem to be good - it's a collection of opinions from members of the public, and there's no mention of Vijayawada
• "Arts, crafts and artefacts" section could have some better flow.
• paragraph beginning "The city of Vijayawada has old and new town areas".... - I don't think so many examples of constituent suburbs need to be listed, focus on the notable ones.
  • Could be excess detail that means nothing to a reader who is not familiar with the city.
• I think the panorama image should go beneath the "Cityscape" section as it interferes with reading in my view.

Transport

• write out abbreviations like "APSRTC" and "BRTS" per MOS:ACRO
• "A new circular railway project proposed would extend up to the state capital, Amaravati" - when was it proposed? Is it a serious proposal, is there any progress? I say this because there are a lot of proposals for new infrastructure that might not all take-off.
  • same with the metro system - status? I googled it and things don't look good.
• "The city has a total road length of 1,264.24 km (785.56 mi),[97] used by 678,004 non-transport and 94,937 transport vehicles" - as of what date? Surely these statistics are changing regularly.
  • Same for auto-rickshaws. Maybe exact statistics are too much detail, you could simply say "Short distance commuting is served by over 27,000 auto rickshaws" for example.
• "and holds a share of 18% in the country" - what is the significance/connection to Vijayawada?
• "On 3 May 2017, Vijayawada Airport was upgraded from domestic to international" - how so? It got international flights for the first time?
• "During the 2016–17 fiscal year, it registered domestic passenger movement growth rate of 56.1% with a total passenger count of 622,354[105] and Aircraft movement recorded a growth of 54.8% with 10,333 aircraft." - growth rates compared to the previous fiscal year?
• Overall this section is done very well with a nice focus on the notable information.

Education

• "It is one of the three School of Planning and Architecture (SPAs) established by the Ministry of Human Resource Development in 2008 as an autonomous institute and a fully Central funded Institution." - no source

Sports

• nothing in this section should be italicized
• [citation needed] tag
• "one of the famous badminton stadiums in AP" - write out "AP"
• "Railway sports stadium" - is this a proper name? Then it should be capitalized.

External links

• "Vijayawada Kanakadurgamma temple official website" - is this necessary?

Intro/lead

• "Y-grade city" - meaning?
• Instead of a list of statistics I'd prefer to see more summary (see MOS:LEAD). Intro can definitely be longer. All major subsections of the article should be touched on: geography, demographics, culture, etc.
  • As a result references are not necessary here, if the information is a summary of the body of the article (which it should be)

Infobox

• "Etymology: Vishākhā" - don't know what this means/refers to.
• "Founded by Arjuna" - isn't Arjuna a religious figure, not a historical person?
• "Named for Victory" - doesn't sound right; namesake often refers to a person/object rather than something abstract
• There's no source for the list of MLAs, and this information doesn't appear in the body of the article.
• The elevation reference doesn't appear reliable - it cites Wikipedia in some areas.

Images

• This picture looks like a copyright violation.

Great work overall and referencing is in good shape generally. There are some minor grammar, conversion, etc. issues that can be fixed easily with a careful review of the article. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 19:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)