A metropolis in India, Delhi includes New Delhi, the capital of the country. At present a Good Article, several points raised in the previous FAC have been addressed. The article is under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities. Please advice so that the article acieves FA status. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I thought their was a minimum time limit between two FACs? --Blacksun 13:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image problems: Image:Bahailotustemple.jpg is from Flickr and was listed as "cc-by-sa-2.5" which is a license Flickr doesn't offer (they only have 2.0). When I went to check it say it's non-commercial now, which isn't usable by Wikipedia. If they originally released it as CC-BY-SA then changed it you can probably use it since, once it's released it's released.... but, get that cleared up. Image:Waterboy.jpg has the same problem. Also Image:Maharaji Nehru stadium.jpg says who it was uploaded by but it's not clear about copyrighted / creator. Probably minor but should be cleaned up. Image:Connaughtplace.jpg has no source. No need to look further until all of that is cleared up. grenグレン 15:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks (I hadn't noticed that it was taken by the uploader). Just to clarify the two images from Flickr have CC-BY-2.5 listed on Wikipedia even though Flickr only offers CC-BY-2.0. CC-BY-2.0 is free, however, the images now state that they are CC-BY-NC-2.0 which is not free since it doesn't allow for commercial use. Since the uploader used the incorrect tag in the first place I cannot tell if the Flickr user changed their mind (which would mean it would be free, because once released you cannot revoke it) or if the uploader was just wrong. If you can get an answer to that then you can use it--just make sure to explain on the image page. In any case, by not using them you have fixed the problem in another way.
Comment. I'm sorry but, I won't support until I've seen other's opinions. This is because I know certain things that make articles opposable but I am not sure what makes it featured quality. Hopefully my comments will help. The pronunciation should follow whichever pronunciation it is representing (which, is not the English). The only other comment I quickly have is that maybe there should be more book references. Although, the main section that would benefit is the History one which has a sub-article. Sorry I'm not more help--but I'd like to see what others say first. grenグレン 05:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's about time that this article should get featured. But I did have some difficulties understanding the difference between Delhi, New Delhi and Old Delhi. Apart from that, I would give it support. --Wolftalk 09:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. Now the lead contains information about what is Old Delhi and New Delhi. The Mughals built a particular section of the city known as Shahjahanabad, now known as Old City or Old Delhi. New Delhi was built by the British as an administrative section of the city, and now serves as the capital of India. Apart from being mentioned in the lead, this has been further discussed in "History" and also, to some extent, in "Government and politics". Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just went through every image currently in the article. There was only one problem. Image:Sweetpan.jpg is licensed for noncommercial use only. I've tagged it for deletion. Nice article layout, by the way. Jkelly 22:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jkelly for the great help. The image was removed. Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support for all the reasons from the last nom. All the probs have been addressed. Nice, nice work. ~ Arjun 02:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Support' - the culture section has improved considerably and it is more relevant in context of Delhi. The biggest improvement has been taking out the list feeling of the old version and adding context to the same information. I can add support to the current revision. Just a question: Arn't the images tad small or is it just my laptop? --Blacksun 12:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The images are thumbed according to the size set by a user. You can have it set to a preset resolution in special:preferences=Nichalp«Talk»= 14:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- could do with a light copyedit. The number of districts in the infobox is wrong btw. =Nichalp«Talk»= 14:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But number of districts in the infobox is 9, same as described in the body of the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the lapse. The districts portion of the infobox has been fixed now. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- per Blacksun, looks much better now. Thanks. Saravask 05:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are still a few instances of flabby prose. Examples:
last sentence of the lead
this: "However, the city is said to have lost its own identity and socio-cultural legacies as it went to absorb multitude of humanity from across the country and has morphed into an amorphous pool of cultural styles"
Still support, but please fix. Saravask 05:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
