Talk:Geography of India

Guidelines for editing the India page

• Text to be written in Indian English (spellings are modelled on British English)
• Units in metric.
• You may also discuss India related matters at: Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics.

While you're at it, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject national geography for an easy way to deal with the CIA factbook material. Circeus 21:50, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

Added a geography article infobox, and also added this article to the list of geography articles that feature infoboxes. Please edit the latter if the infobox ends up being removed. --Skoosh 22:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Map

Some one have a large size satellite multi spectral image of India ?.

I think I found a large cache at the nasa visible earth site. Can I request someone with better graphics handling capability to include this in this and related pages ?--IMpbt 14:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Nice work

Good work on the article. As soon as my net connection is restored, I'll try and come back to this article.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 19:28, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

% water

What is the %water in terms of area? This infobox and the India infobox are differemt.

I calculated the figure in this article using the figures for total area and area covered by water in the CIA World Factbook entry on India[1], on the Windows Me calculator. 314,400 divided by 3,287,590 = 0.095632362916300390255475895716923. Rounding off to the nearest 1/1000 yields 0.096, which I see now, is not the same as 0.096%. I've just fixed that. --Skoosh 21:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Its correct as it is. This is a common misunderstanding in mathematics. When you say %xyz = something, the something is always explicitely in % value. I've cleared all disambigs now.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 08:27, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. 96/1000 = 0.096 = 9.6% (or approximately 1/10), not 0.096% (which is approximately 1/1000). It's the percent sign that makes the difference. Either the figure in question needs to be changed to 9.6%, or the percent sign after it should be removed. I'm going with the former. --Skoosh 18:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Political Geography

I think it is not a wise idea to include this topic in the Geography of India. Political Geography of India is a vast topic and there should be a seperate article on it. Thanks --IncMan 15:59, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

It does come under Geography and a small section would be enough. A larger article is already present though. We would have to include this if we are to make it a Featured Article. See Geography of Ireland which is a FA. Regards,  =Nichalp (Talk)= 16:04, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Nichalp because this article should cover all the geographical aspects of India. Besides, to have a seperate article on the political gegraphy of India would be too small. Also, the political geography is included in the India article.

Geographical map of India

The present map gives little info on geography of India. What is required is a map on India's topography and geographical details. --IncMan 19:45, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Copy vio and reversions

Hi, I have noticed RI making a lot of these reversions, Some of the material (especially ones dealing with spelling corrections in other sections) are not copy-vio's per se, could RI please refrain from reverting the entire article, and if possible mentioning the copy-vio items to the talk page before reverting ?. It makes it very difficult to trace what we were editing if there are revisions dating so long back. --IMpbt 19:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I see the problem, and I understand your frustration. I hate undoing the work of other people, especially when they acted in good faith. For what it's worth, I haven't been making "a lot of these reversions", I have made several in the past week and they were all related to one particular user. Unfortunately, there is no rollback for sections only, and rollback to the version before the copyvio happened is the standard remedy. You can copy the content of "clean" sections over to the current version of the article (many sections were indeed affected, though). For the future, I suggest you guys are more vigilant yourself — if someone is inserting chunks of text that read like snippets from newspaper articles, then they probably are. — I tend to provide at least one URL in the edit summary when reverting, but even if I don't (like in this case) it is trivial to find the sources using a search engine (e.g. [2], [3]). — I am sorry for the trouble, but you are really shooting at the messenger. Rl 21:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, We will try to, but I think you should be more considerate while reverting - just blank out sections/mark them as copy-vio. This will help us replace the section or remove it without affecting the other sections. The messenger needs to act with tact, other wise he is liable to make people frustrated.--IMpbt 03:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How am I supposed to know exactly which parts of the article are copyedited, derived versions of proprietary material? I'd have to follow them through the whole revision history. You at least have some idea of what you wrote yourself. In addition, if we just remove (rather than rolling back), we won't be able to purge the copyvio from the revision history ever. And talking about frustration: I have spent several hours of my spare time just tracking down the copyvios of this single editor and making several people unhappy in the process, simply because not enough people do patrol on new pages and recent changes. If you have a high tolerance for frustration or wish to spare other people the frustration you just experienced, you are cordially invited to help track down such problems before other editors spend time editing copyvios. Rl 07:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In your edit wars, the references have been anhialated including some of my added text.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 14:03, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

There has been no edit war. Rl 14:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No edit war, I agree, Only a discussion with RI about reverts to the whole article. I haven't made any reversions or edits contrary to the earlier reversions. Hopefully, we will be able to restore the sections reverted, in which there were no copy-vio's.--IMpbt 19:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Extreme temperatures

Anyone has any idea as to the extreme temperatures in India. I recall that the min was -45 & max was 50+?  =Nichalp (Talk)= 13:14, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I think the mins are mostly in ladakh, siachen. The min figure seems to be alright, but the max maybe in rajasthan/punjab I think 51 or 52 might be the right figure. I can't seem to find the earlier references however. --IMpbt 19:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It will be listed in the Limca book of records.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 04:36, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

pictures

We have some great pictures: See Image:Aravalli.jpg Image:Talmarg.jpg.jpg Image:Vindhya.jpg Image:Vivekananda Memorial Kanyakumari.jpg Image:Andamanen.jpg Image:Narmada.jpg Image:Tsongmo Lake.jpg Image:River Teesta.jpg Image:Yumthanghimalayas.jpg Image:Yumthangnorth.jpg Image:India Goa Anjouna Beach.jpg Image:Pangong lake by martinl.jpg Image:Deccan.jpg Image:Ganga.jpg Image:Himalayas.jpg

Is there some problem with using the NASA earth images ?.--IMpbt 19:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problems, why?  =Nichalp (Talk)= 19:45, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I remember there being satellite pictures with the geo sections, seem to have disappeared ?.--IMpbt 23:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know, I've listed them above. I'll add them once the text work is done.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 04:36, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Still to be completed

1. Water bodies; lakes, wetlands, rivers, evaporation, gulfs etc/
2. Fill in natural resources
3. Fill in enviromental issues

• Images to be added after all copyedits are done

 =Nichalp (Talk)= 15:24, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

I have added a bit of material as place holders for some of the sections. Hope to start again tomorrow on these topics. The references for the river section is invisible for now. --IMpbt 23:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

K2 dispute

It is an undeniable fact that whether K2 is in Pakistan or India is subject to dispute. Editors working on this article must acknowledge this dispute and not take sides on whether the state of Jammu and Kashmir is in India or Pakistan. This is required by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Kelly Martin 16:24, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't think anyone will revert it.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 19:30, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Given that someone already did once, I do not share your confidence. Kelly Martin 20:18, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

To get to the K2 you will need a Pakistani Visa!

Azad Kashmir (Free Kahmir) is depicted as a part of India which is wrong but Indian law recuire it to be depicted as Indian terretory. But Wikipedia is not bound by Indian law and should show the world map as how it actually is.

According to UN the whole of Kashmir is disputed terretory!

No respected organisation in the world considers K2 a part of India, neither is India mentioned in the K2 article. Even typing k2 in google brings No mention of Inida. Hence it is being removed.Khokhar (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It is saying: "According India's official opinion, India's highest point is the K2 at 8,611 m (28,251 ft), though the K2 is located on the border[6] between Pakistan administered Northern Areas,[7] and Xinjiang, China, in the disputed Kashmir region."

Nothing POV about that, because India officially considers whole of disputed Kashmir, incl. the K2 as India. Just check maps from India and you see that Kashmir is completely part of India. This is indeed Indian POV and is as such written down in the article. It is relevant for this article, because it's about the Geography of India, so it needs to address how India itself sees its own geography. So stop reverting - you are clearly reacting out of pro-Pakistani POV. --Jeroen (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to put forward India's 'official stance' nor does it care what India's official stance is, hence why there is no mention of India in the K2 article.. so India's official stance is not relevant, and I have not included parts not 'controlled or considered part of Pakistan into Pakistan's territory so I do not see how I am putting forward any Pro Pakistan POV, however you are clearly putting forward a pro India POV, even the maps in this article are not recognised by any official body outside of India, and yes wikipedia has no affiliation to India.. to resolve this matter; I am asking for a Third opinion.Khokhar (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to a professional third opinion. BTW: I'm not pro-India or anti-Pakistan or whatsoever. --Jeroen (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia promotes NPOV. I feel the sentence According India's official opinion, India's highest point is the K2 at 8,611 m (28,251 ft), though the K2 is located on the border[6] between Pakistan administered Northern Areas,[7] and Xinjiang, China, in the disputed Kashmir region in the article rightly gives the Indian as well as Pakistani Position on this issue which is NPOV. Ok, I am a Indian and It might seem to Khokhar that I am biased, but the fact remains that India recognises K2 as its territory while Pakistan regards it as its territory. Since there remains an ambiguity as to whether K2 lies in India or Pakistan, I was of the opinion that both points needed mention in the sentence. Thats why I reverted the edits made by User:K.Khokhar and feel the edits made by User:Jeroen are correct. Gprince007 (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your both Indian including Nichalp and Jeroen we need non Indian users to help Forzacry65 (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This sock puppet must be confused. I'm not Indian and he/she can check that very easily. So there is only one that is neutral over here and that's me. --Jeroen (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This indian sock must be fooling himself your obsessed with Kashmir lol grow up we know your Indian there 23 million NRIS and your one of them Forzacry65 (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha I'm a sock!!!? First I laughed about the "accusations" of me being an Indian and now I'm really laughing. Since when is a moderator on the Dutch Wikipedia a sock? and since when are the Netherlands an Indian state!? :-) --Jeroen (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL did you know 23 million Indian live abroad? and your one of them look at your contributions lol they give it away your only interest is India and you live in Netherlands big deal I live in England get a grip troll Forzacry65 (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to lower your tone a bit Forzacry65; I see Jeroen contributing in a sensible and well-documented way here and you just keep on ranting against him without arguments (except for the he's an Indian). This does not support the discussion and will bring no workable solution closer within reach. If you want to defend your opinion you should provide arguments and sources and keep in mind that the authority over the region is a subject of dispute and that the text should reflect this in order to comply with WP:NPOV. JZ85 (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly can we please keep it civil, also user Forzacry is not a sock of my account, in case any one had that impression, secondly jeroen, no offence intended, but I would consider you an 'Indian' simply because of your interests and contributions, I know you live in the neterlands but I also live in the UK and I am only half Pakistani but still consider myself to be 'Pakistani' due to interests, also user Gprince007 made a contribution, I am not sure whether this was as part of the 'third opinion' request I made but said user is also 'Indian' (In the context of my earlier explanation) so I would appreciate a 'neutral' party to give the 'third opinion'. Regards. Khokhar (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

ps. Thanks for the explanation Gprice007, I can understand your thinking but as the territory is neither controlled or generally recognised/considered a part of India; is is not a matter of saying it's in India because India officially believes it should be, as then that would be 'India's opinion' and not a neutral opinion, however all sources say it is either in northern Pakistan or in Pakistan controlled/administered Northern Areas, my point being that the geography of India should be a 'factual' document based on a consensus of neutral international views not just what 'India perceives it's boundaries ought to be'. So in reality the highest point in India's immediate geography is located in Sikkim, this is a fact and I believe the article, being geographical by nature, should stick to facts. Regards. Khokhar (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

@Khokhar: When someone is writing about countries on Wikipedia it does not make him or her a national of that country. If that was the case, I would have a bookcase of passports over here. :-) No I'm not an Indian, I am without doubt very neutral and by far a nationalist (also not a Dutch nationalist, more an anti-nationalist). It is clear to me, you can't separate your heritage from the neutral facts as far as I can see. Hopefully you will improve yourself. Jeroen (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Khokhar: Well you still feel that we r pushing Indian POV. The fact is that K2 lies in the Kashmir region which is claimed by India as its territory...a claim which is disputed by Pakistan. Thus, the statement in the article mentions both the facts that "According Indian Government's official stance, it's highest point is the K2....located on the border between Pakistan administered Northern Areas and Xinjiang, China, in the disputed Kashmir region." ....Pls note the fact that this sentence mentions Indian Stance as well as Pakistani stance (regarding status of K2 vis-a-vis Kashmir dispute). Since it mentions both sides of argument, i believe it conforms to the guidelines of NPOV....As for the rantings and ramblings by User:Forzacry65, its best that he/she is ignored and/or banned from editing. Gprince007 (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

@Gprince007, That's a fair point, and though I don't purport to be entirely neutral, I can see reason and value compromise, I think it would be fair to restructure the statement so that it takes into account actual/controlled Indian territory first and then goes into any ambiguity/claim as an addition. You may also want to take a look at the grammar used by the last editor.

@Jeroen, I know exactly what I need to improve about myself, having the integrity to admit the reasons for my interest in a given matter is not one of them, thanks for the concern.. also I did try to keep this civil but on your insistence and seeing as you only write about 'One' country; I am compelled to think you do need to improve yourself as you are clearly suffering from an Inferiority Complex which keeps you from admitting your interests. Regards. Khokhar (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My remarks were not meant to be an insult, but an advise; I see you try to insult me now. Anyhow you forget that the English Wikipedia is not my main Wikipedia, it's the Dutch Wikipedia. So your assumption that I only write about India are false, actually I only made some corrections on the English Wikipedia. For my extensive work you have to visit the Dutch Wikipedia. I will now stop the discussion with you now, because the only thing you can do is accusing me of editing Indian related articles. Ridiculous! --Jeroen (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A request for a third opinion on this dispute was made at WP:Third opinion; so here are my thoughts on the topic. Obviously, it is perfectly appropriate for an article on Indian geography to discuss the Karakoram mountains, but if you are going to mention a specific geographic feature like K2 that is not in an area currently controled by India you need to explicitly state that the feature is on the border between areas currently controled by Pakistan and China and is not under Indian administration. Otherwise you risk confusing readers from other parts of the world who are not familiar with the history of the region. Also if you mention it by name you should probably link the article K2 (mountain) which discusses this. As to the rest of the discussion, I suggest that you stick to discussing how to improve the article, and avoid comments about other editors (or yourself for that matter), and remebmer that one of the cornerstonse of WP:civility is assuming good faith on the part of other editors. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the Third opinion. I have made the following changes according to our discussion and the neutral third opinion:

“ Kanchenjunga in Sikkim at 8,598 m (28,209 ft) is the highest point within India's current geographic boundries, K2 at 8,611 m (28,251 ft) would be higher but it is administered by Pakistan and located on the border between the Pakistan administered Northern Areas of the disputed Kashmir region and Xinjiang, China. Climate across India ranges from equatorial in the far south, to Alpine in the upper reaches of the Himalayas. ”

Khokhar (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the edit by Khokar above seems to present only half the facts. He states that Kanchenga is the highest point in India which is not the case. Actually Govt of India considers K2 to be highest point in India while Pakistan considers K2 to be part of its territory. Thats why i had replaced it with

“ Officially, India's highest point is K2 at 8,611 m (28,251 ft), though this is in the Pakistani-administered Kashmir, a disputed region.[6] Kanchenjunga in Sikkim at 8,598 m (28,209 ft) is the second-highest point in India ”

The above sentence states both Government's official stance and is more neutral. Also it has been in the article for over an year and was agreed upon by consensus. I suggest we restore the sentence back in the article. Gprince007 (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The above sentence (mine) was agreed by the neutral party, and it mentions, as the neutral party asked, that K2 is 'administred by Pakistan' and in a 'disputed' region, India's official position is irrelevent as The 'facts' have been mentioned, if you want to change the sentence then you'll need to ask for 'dispute resolution' as the previous edit has already been agreed by neutral arbitration and states all the facts because end of the day K2 is not adminisstred by india and this needs to be made clear. Regards.Khokhar (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Another proposal (simplification of Khokhar's proposal):

“ Kanchenjunga in Sikkim at 8,598 m (28,209 ft) is the highest point within India's current geographic boundries. While India officially recognises K2 8,611 m (28,251 ft) as its highest point, it is situated in the Pakistan-administered part of the disputed region of Kashmir. ”

As K2 is part of the disputed region of Kashmir, there is no need to further complicate the situation by introducing the respective official political geographies and versions of borders of Pakistan and China. If one tries to feature this article again, we will have to commit a whole para to explain all the border disputes. Shiva (Visnu) 01:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Great work guys. I did some copyediting. Btw, shouldn't we mention the mythical river Saraswathi somewhere here? Or perhaps, it won't fit in the current flow and focus. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 05:34, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

It was added but I removed it. THe ASI failed to find any evidence of it recently.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 08:50, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Let this be on record then. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 09:14, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Linguistic/ethnic vs. geographic

I added a sentence to the intro that India's political divisions are ethno-linguistic rather than geographic. Some other nations have states that are divided more clearly by geographic/geological features (rivers, mountain ranges, other water bodies, etc), so the contrast seems worth observing. If someone thinks I give it too much prominence in the intro, and wishes to move it to the "political geography" section, I'm fine with that. But I think the concept should be included somewhere. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:18, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

I echo that.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:13, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Watchlist

I don't watch this page anymore so if there are no replies, please post a comment on my talk page. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 3, 2005 10:23 (UTC)

Indian English

As with the India article, this article should be written in Indian English. See Talk:India. - OptimusPrime July 8, 2005 10:04 (UTC)

Sounds like you've got some work to do, then. siafu 8 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)

Useless picture

There is a foolish picture showing two dancers with the caption - Map showing pollution and haze!

Article Needs Cleanup

This article needs major cleanup, such as in the following points: -The references should be presented as footnotes, and several, repeat several, more footnoted references need to be introduced in this article to make it more trustworthy. -This article needs an external links section, divided into an "official" and "unofficial" section, each divided into groups. -Each of the pictures need to be referenced. -More emphasis needs to be given to the natural resources of India. -This article needs to be given a degree of protection to shield it from potential vandalism. -The introduction needs to be made shorter; some of the information removed from there could maybe be put into the sections. Someone, please help clean up this article to raise it to a higher status as an article! Johnsmithcba 16:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Attention all concerned Indian Wikipedians (It is in FAR)

Attention all concerned Indian Wikipedians While doing a research on Geography of West Bengal, I noticed that the article Geography of India, a FA is in a bad condition, probably it will not meet the WP:GA criteria. The article was featured on June 8, 2005 that is about 2 years back when the Wikipedia was not much organised, so it got FA easily. If any improvement is not done, it will get defeatured within no time. I am pointing out some of the errors in the article:

1. Excess importance is given to the highest point in the lead. Remove it and replace by other suitable statement
2. Location and extent-eastern, western and northern tip missing, IST must be included, neighbours of India may be incorporated
3. Political geography – must be written in a prose form rather than list.
4. Geographical regions-
   1. Mountains
      1. Image:Indiahills.png and Image:India topo big.jpg must be replaced by svg image,
      2. remove list of mountains, no mention of upper and middle himalays,
   2. Indo-Gangetic plain-No mention of Bhabar and Khadar, Terai formation
   3. Highlands-Highest peak in Deccan plateau missing, Central highlands (Malwa) missing, eastern Meghalaya plateau and Karbi Anglong plateau missing
   4. East coast-No mention of Northern Circas
   5. West coast- Kachchh and Kathiawar coast in Gujrat, back waters in Kerela and presence of important ports missing
   6. Islands-
      1. Andaman- seperation by 10 degree channel, barren island missing, largest island, no of inhabited island, longitudianal and latitudial extent,
      2. Lakshwadeep- seperation by 11 degree channel, largest island, longitudianal and latitudial extent all are missing
5. Natural disasters-Drought missing
6. Natural resources-More data needed
7. Missing parts-Soil, Natural vegetation and wildlife
8. Overall-Lack of grammar, spellings, WP:MOS and must be writen in prose form.
9. To prevent further vandalism- semi-protection policy must be applied to the article
10. Inline ciations missing

This was the initial observation. Further comments are expected to improve the quality of the article. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

also...

Apparent inconsistencies with relevant section of MOS:

a total land area of 3,287,590 km² (1,269,219 square miles).

should actually read:

a total land area of 3,287,590 square kilometers (1,269,219 m²)..

Am i correct? This is just one example - there are many more. Merbabu 06:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected the territorial area of india as 3287263 sqkm....which is correct according to the india.gov.in website as well as the india yearbook 2007 published by govt of india.the previous info was 3287590 which cited cia as its reference.but i've corrected it and added suitable references...Gprince007 15:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As suggested by Amartyabag additions have been made about terai,bhabar,khadar and bangar belt in the indo-gangetic plains.Gprince007 12:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

History

I'm not sure if this section makes sense. The history of the geography sounds kind of odd and the section is really about the Indian Plate rather than about geography. Any objections to deleting the section? --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 22:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It is somewhat weird to have a History of Geography section. But the information presented in the section is relevant for the article. Should we change the section title? Or merge it into any other section?--GDibyendu (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraph of the article

I feel that the article should begin with "The geography of India comprises of...." instead of "India is a country in South Asia..". The article is about Geography of India and the introductory line should be the former and not the latter....Gprince007 (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

'comprises of' doesn't make sense since the geography doesn't comprise of anything. However, the broader point is proper, so I'll rewrite the first sentence. Let me know if it works for you. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 18:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds better now !!! Gprince007 (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Maps and References

The maps may need a rework and turned into svg wherever it makes sense. Can someone work on this? References also needs to be standardized. I am volunteering to work on that. Once these two tasks are done, I guess we should file a GA review first and then proceed as it seems reasonable. Does it sound good?--GDibyendu (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

GAN

I am proposing to go for WP:GAN now, once we attain GA status, we can try to get FA-status. Does it sound good?--GDibyendu (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I am copyediting the article and feel that at this point of time if we push for GA, a number of issues regarding the language / grammar might come up. I am almost done with copyediting but still i am not getting enough time for completing it. Also i feel that we might need to add some more sources. An article with this length wud certainly need more than the current 39 references. Gprince007 (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wetlands

I don't think the 'cold and arid located in the Ladakh region' can be regarded as wetlands. There may be a lot of water in the form of snow there, but wetlands are characterised by standing water and general swampiness, which doesn't seem to apply here. Suggest moving the Ladakh bit to the Climate section. milwyn (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)