Talk:Prayagraj/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vensatry (talk · contribs) 13:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take up this review. Will post my initial set of comments soon —Vensatry _(Ping) 13:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"Allahabad is the seventh most populous city in the state and the thirty-sixth most populous city in India" needs "As of ..."
"In 2011, it was ranked the world's 130th fastest growing city" – unsourced
Page nos. needed for ref #8
"The city's original name – Prayaga, or "place of offerings" – comes from its position at the sacred union of the rivers Ganges, Yamuna and Saraswati": Sentence is unclear. How do you correlate "place of offerings" with "sacred union".
The fact that Allahabad is the second-oldest city in India is unsourced and present only at the lead
I'm not sure what you mean by "plays a central role in the Hindu scriptures"
Link Doab
Area of 63.07 km2 is not mentioned anywhere in the article except lead
Allahabad City Council – ditto
You say that the city is the second-oldest in India while infobox mentions that it was founded in 1583 AD
Area of metropolitan city equals 5,424 km2 – not true, it's the area of the district

Etymology

The section is too small. Perhaps consider merging it with History if it can't be expanded further

Demographics

"Provisional data suggest a density of 1,087 people per km2 in 2011, compared to 901 in 2001" pertains to district data
The following sentences are either unsourced or incorrectly sourced
The last para of the section is sourced to "Provisional Population Totals, Census of India 2011; Urban Agglomerations/Cities having population 1 lakh and above" which no way conveys the information presented in the article.
- I've not fully read the article. After going through a few sections, it feels like criterion 1 and 2 are not met. The prose is weak in many places, and many facts need to satisfy WP:V. The article needs to have a thorough copy-edit by a GOCE member. For now, I'm stopping my review and will have a look at it tomorrow. —Vensatry _(Ping) 12:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been close to a week since I started the review. The nominator is yet to respond even after knowing that the review has started. Therefore, I'm 'failing this review. —Vensatry _(Ping) 08:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]