Talk:Kulpahar

User:Rohit_klar ----I wonder why this page is not searchable on wikipedia search however this page can be searched through google search engine.

Formatting

Please consider formatting the sections per the guidelines on the WP:INCITIES. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

File:Udaipur highway.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Udaipur highway.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kulpahar/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Please note for a B-class rating the article should atleast be in the right direction, but sadly the article is in a wrong direction. Banks and treasuries, Hospitals, Granite mining in Kulpahar, Excursions, Archaeological sites are all trivial data. You haven't put anything important in the article. With only 4 references, I don't think the article can be upgraded to B-class.---Kensplanet (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC) I do believe that data on Kulpahar is not up-to the mark but that is what is expected from a B-class article. I know that Hospitals section just have names of the hospitals I don't have any references of them, now how to authenticate them. At most I can put the services offered by them, the same is the case with Banks and treasuries. If you could have a look at article Allahabad then you'll find that article in the same tone, but that article has been rated as B-class just because it is a well known city of India? Either that article should be downgraded to start-class or all the articles of the same tone should be upgraded to B-class. It is almost impossible to put references about a lesser known places. i put two book references about Kulpahar those I could found only after extensive googling of more than 2 years (few months back there wasn't any book reference available on google). There are many books which describe Kulpahar but contains no ISBN number and I found them irrelevant and providing references of those book doesn't comply to standard. Let me know if I'm moving in a wrong direction. --Rohit Saxena (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Shifted here from Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Assessment. Mspraveen (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC) I added quite a few references on the Kulpahar article page.--Rohit Saxena (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Just checkout Allahabad Article it has only 3 references but still managed to get B-class article status. Why this biased judgement? --Rohit Saxena (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Kanpur article too assessed B-class but no citation/references. Why so? --Rohit Saxena (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC) We at the department are not biased at articles. Are we crazy to be biased at Start and B-class articles. To be biased, the article should have some class and that starts with GA, A, and FA. Is Kulpahar some great city of the world and a great article that we are biased against it. Please refrain from making allegations henceforth in future. Please stop adding lame references as for B-class articles, references don't count. For B-class, the article should incorporate important details which the article doesn't. Hence it cannot be promoted to B-class. Allahabad having 3 reference has better details on Important details like History. Hence it deserves a B-class. If you are not satisfied with the assesement, then you can give it for reassesement as you have done before. It will be reassesed by some other editor. Hope that helps, KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions This article independently (other than who created this article) given rating of B-class. The article got this rating after gradualy improving. Any further changes done to the article on quality scale must be done by giving due reasons. This article has been assigned B-class rating on quality scale as it cites various varifiable references and covers most of the sections required in a city article, however further improvement is required to make it a Good article. On importance scale it has been rated as mid importance by various workgroups like India and Indian cities workgroup and High importance by Uttar pradesh workgroup as it is the headquarter of the largest sub-district of the state and has many historical and archaeological sites of state and national importance.--Rohit Saxena (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 21:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kulpahar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140408180437/http://www.indianrail.gov.in/ to http://www.indianrail.gov.in/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)