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

The article was kept by Maralia via FACBot (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Talk page notification: December 2014
Notified: Omer123hussain, WikiProject Cities, Noticeboard for India-related topics

I am nominating this featured article for review because since its promotion the new state of Telangana has been created. This has introduced instability to the article, and a blanket change of all mentions of Andhra Pradesh to Telangana has resulted in frankly false statements such as the claim that Hyderabad is in the north-western part of Telangana, which it isn't. The entire article needs copy-editing, fact-checking and updating. DrKay (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand your concerns, but I dont think there is any emergency to review the articles FA status, We had been visiting the article regularly and updated required changes and c/e. May be minor corrections are required which we can do with concensus by discussing on articles talkpage, I am ready to cooperate. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is now only one part of the article that I am not happy about, but as it is in the lead, and impacts on more than one of the featured article criteria, it is sufficient to preclude me from supporting the FA status of this article. Namely, the article says that Hyderabad State join[ed] the Indian Union in 1948. Such wording implies that the State joined willingly, and it entirely omits to mention the invasion. Firstly, this is not neutral: it is bias towards the Hindu viewpoint that the annexation of Hyderabad was justified. I understand that saying the invasion was illegal would be seen as a Muslim viewpoint and also bias; however, the way to resolve such a disagreement is to come to a compromise, not select one view over another. I also feel that this phrase is neither comprehensive, since it omits key details, nor well-researched, since it does not reflect the prevailing consensus that Hyderabad was invaded and annexed. If joining cannot be replaced with was annexed by or was incorporated into, then something more substantial needs to be said, to avoid misleading readers.

The last discussion on the talk page that seems to tackle this issue (Talk:Hyderabad/Archive 5#Corrections and clarifications needed....) suggests instead of after joining the Indian Union in 1948, and ... the wording: after 1948, when the Nizam signed an Instrument of Accession with the Indian Union at the conclusion of Operation Polo. It ... I see no opposition to this on the talk page. It is worded more fairly than the present but less concisely than one of the other alternatives, so I propose this as a third alternative wording. DrKay (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, its a very valid point you (DrKay) highlighted, I suggest to replace Joined with brought. "The city continued as the capital of Hyderabad State after it was brought into the Indian Union in 1948". Hope it works. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it in. Let's see how it plays. DrKay (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Close without FARC, having gotten a swift response to my one remaining concern. Even if the new wording does not take hold, I believe this single point (which only effects one word) should be resolvable through ordinary editing or on the talk page of the article. DrKay (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In the "Common capital of ... " section, I suggest we need either some re-phrasing or quote marks from the text supported by this source. Based on that, a spotcheck for close paraphrasing might be in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It is better if we chopp that section Common_capital or atleast merge it into some suitable section, The same phrases are mentioned in Notes. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the section should be kept since it is clearly an important point, but the note and notes section could be cut; I presume they are only there because there was disagreement over whether it was a common capital at first. Personally, I don't think it's a problem to quote from the act, given that it is clearly marked as a quote and it precludes disagreements if we just report what the act says. DrKay (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DrK, you lost me on "clearly marked as a quote"? I'm talking about the top ofthis section, which is not in quotes, or indicated as a quote, or paraphrased adequately ... ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I see; I've added quote marks. DrKay (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure if this image of Hyderabadi Biryani is okay with CC liscense to keep in the article, as per image file it is sourced from [Flickr,here, So shall we replace or continue it. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed that the uploader at flickr had changed the license to one that is no longer compatible, but it is not possible to revoke rights once released. The image was originally uploaded to flickr as cc-by, and so it remains cc-by. The subsequent change at flickr to by-nc-nd is invalid. I have added a note to the file. DrKay (talk) 08:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DrKay, if you are still satisfied, then I concur with Close without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Still OK, thanks. DrKay (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from Maralia four days ago pending still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The Climate section needs attention. The prose and the weatherbox disagree on figures repeatedly. They are cited to different sources, which themselves represent data for wildly disparate date ranges. The prose cites a source that claims anywhere from 18–50 "years on record", while the weatherbox is based on sources covering 1951–1980 and 1971–1990. This results in such anomalies as different months being determined the coldest (January or December?). Aside from the internal inconsistency issue, data that ends at 1980 or 1990 seems quite insufficient especially when it comes to climate. Maralia (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hope its okay now, thanks DrKay for your prompt action. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I wasn't clear. Before, we had numbers in the prose and the weatherbox that did not agree, and data in the weatherbox that was sorely out of date. With this edit, the numbers in the prose now match the weatherbox, but the underlying problem of out-of-date data remains: the weatherbox does not reflect any data from the past 25 (and sometimes 35) years. Maralia (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything more recent for six of the nine parameters. I have updated the three others to the figures collected 1951–2000. DrKay (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything before either—NOAA only had figures for 1971–1990—but I got fed up and dug further, knowing that we have several other Indian city FAs. The climate sections on Darjeeling and Mysore both cite this document from the IMD, which contains data from 1951–2000 and does have figures for Hyderabad as well. Wish I had looked this far earlier. Thoughts on incorporating this source? Maralia (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one I used above to update "to the figures collected 1951–2000". I'm reassured though, that someone else has also checked for sources and come up with the same. DrKay (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this made me laugh (at myself) so hard! It's awfully charitable of you not to point out that I appear to be losing it. That's what I get for working on content and sources in the wee hours. Maralia (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Maralia (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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