# Talk:Sitakunda Upazila

See this controversy about the eco park: http://www.sdnbd.org/sdi/news/pages/eco-park/eco-park.htm --Dr.saptarshi 04:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The controversies at that page are about other eco-parks. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
There's this Hazarikhil Wildlife Sanctuary that is partly in Sitakunda (see: IUCN Directory]). Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Plenty ship breaking resources here, all of which lead here. I hope to add a lot more information soon. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

We also can make use of Household and Population of Statistical Metropolitan Areas in Bangladesh for updated data on the upazila and the municipality. Aditya(talk • contribs) 22:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
More info needed on the Bangla Bhai connections, the mangrove forest, accidents in the ship breaking industry, Rakhaine population, Buddhists, anti-Raj movement, Portuguese raids, Mughal empire, Arakan and Tripura connections, flora and fauna, disability, names of unions, human rights, communal riots, rubber plantation, abduction of journalist Atahar Siddique Khasru working on ship breaking... Also, check on the following links:
Ship Breaking Activities and its Impact on the Coastal Zone of Chittagong, Bangladesh: Towards Sustainable Management
Tea giant Finley sells business to local group (with ship breaking activities)
End of life ships
Shipbreakers scar Bangladesh shoreline
Rapport Shipbreaking TK
Is there a decent way to break ships?
Shipbreaking: A background paper
So much more to be done. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Sitakunda and cyclones:
Landfall at Sitakunda
High risk population
Impact on seawall
There could be more on cyclones. There may be more stuff on the drainage system and embankment as well. Also, the cyclone years need to be referenced with in-line citation. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Now there are a few history links that would help very much:
Historical Background of Chittagong Port, Chittagong Port Authority-CPA, Cached
Outline of Burmese History, HTML version of the file here
Arakan during the Mrauk U Period: The Political Success of a Buddhist Border States, Historical Conference on Seventeenth Century Southeast Asia in the Context of Autonomous History
The Rise and Fall of the kingdom of Mrohaung in Arakan, D.G.E. Hall
Sigh... I keeping imagining that I'll get around to these links, and keep failing. A kick in the butt may be what I need. *Groan*. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
More on the Hammadiyar Mosque (see: Sultans and Mosques). Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, in the latest revision as of 17:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC), there are three sentences that don't seem to fit in well. In the first paragraph, there is a sentence about a hot spring that is being explored as a potential source of geothermal energy:

5 km north of Sitakunda Town is the Labanakhya saltwater hot spring, which is being explored as a source of geothermal energy.
By itself it's fine, though 5km should probably be spelled out "Five kilometres" instead. More about this later.
In the second paragraph, there is a sentence about wind energy. For me, it stands out because there is no context given to it, no prior sentence about wind speeds. That would be one way to develop this paragraph. Another way would be to combine this sentence and the hot spring sentence as part of a paragraph about Sitakunda Upazila and alternative energy. There might be other ways to develop this paragraph.
The third sentence that bothers me is about two volcanoes from 1762. I think it would make more sense if there were some content about the geological history of the region, in addition to the two volcanoes. I also think that the hot spring content could also be incorporated here, since hot springs are normally associated with volcanism or at least relatively near magma flow.
My suggestion: take the wind energy sentence and put it near this one:

The Sitakunda range has a 32 km long ridge in the middle, which reaches 352 m at Chandranath or Sitakunda peak, highest peak in Chittagong District, with an altitude of 352 m above mean sea level.
and add some statement about the wind speeds recorded in these hills.
I think it would be best if the hot spring content and the volcano content were part of a paragraph on the geological history of the area (is/was this area prone to volcanic eruptions or earthquakes?, etc.). The paragraph would probably fit better in the "Geology" section than strictly "Geography". --Kyoko 17:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Checking out today. Right now I don't have the additional data. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Reorganized the whole section. I hope it's better now. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Due to the prose errors and sentence errors, I decided to quick fail the GAN. miranda 04:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


### Taken out in the Lead
The environmental impact and human rights standards of the industry is facing much complains.
The first eco-park in Bangladesh was established in 2001.


### History
What does the legend have to do with archaeologist discovery? I took this out.
According to legends, great sage Bhargava created a pond (kunda) for Sita Devi to bathe when her hausban Lord Ramchandra visited this place during his exile in the forests.

[Fakhruddin Mubarak Shah]] - where's the dynasty?
I stopped copyediting after the second paragraph
Many repetitions of words throughout the article
Avoid using: it, here, there are (and variations)
Paragraph structure for a good/featured article:

Intro
Claim
Supporting evidence
Supporting evidence
Conclusion
Sentence fragments: In September 29, 2006. Anwarul Kabir Talukder, the State Minister for Power, lost his job In September 29, 2006 when hundreds of protesters in Sitakunda blocked the Dhaka–Chittagong highway and violence erupted elsewhere in Bangladesh in demand of electricity.[66]
Refs. aren't according to WP:CITE. miranda 05:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As a LOCE member, I've been working on the copyediting.  Not done yet, but please use my talk page if you have any questions about any changes I've made that you like or dislike; understand or don't understand.  I'd be happy to explain my reasoning.  Thanks, happy editing,  Keeper  |  76 17:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Whew!  I've made 200+ changes; 100% grammar and wikilink related.  I have no knowledge of this subject matter and made changes exclusively for readability without regard to claims/assertions/factual accuracy.  Please note, I have not addressed any of the other issues that User:Miranda appropriately pointed out (like CITE).  To those that may wish to bring this back to GA or FA consideration, please note that it is not there yet without addressing the other issues.  The article is much improved, (with extremely solid contributions by User:Aditya Kabir), but would need an additonal subject expert (or three) to make this one really shine!
One thing that should be considered is reorganizing the lead, it's choppy and there are things that probably don't need to be there. (Again, I'm not familiar with the subject, so I won't be doing it).  First impressions are very important for FA and GA level articles as they are the first (and sometimes only) parts of the article that are read by ordinary readers.    Thanks, happy editing!  Keeper  |  76 20:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked over the introduction again, and it currently says:
Sitakunda (Bengali: সীতাকুণ্ড Shitakunḍo IPA: /ʃit̪akunɖo/) is an upazila of Chittagong District in the Division of Chittagong, Bangladesh.
I suggest this shorter version which explains what an upazila is:
Sitakunda (Bengali: সীতাকুণ্ড Shitakunḍo IPA: /ʃit̪akunɖo/) is an upazila, or administrative subsection, within the Chittagong District in Bangladesh.
The Chittagong District could also be replaced by Chittagong Division in this text. My reasoning is that I feel that most readers won't be interested by an exact breakdown of Sitakunda within Bangladesh's administration, in the very first sentence.
I also suggest reorganising the intro so that the first paragraph says what Sitakunda is most known for... perhaps the ship-breaking industry, or its many temples? Saying that Sitakunda Upazila is n out of 26 upazilas comes across to me as not very interesting trivia.
I'll try to work on this article when I can. I'm still not well, but getting better, and tonight I have more energy. --Kyoko 06:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 Done check if it's alright. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I checked through it Aditya, it "flows" much better and you've done a much better job transitioning from one subject to the next.  The lead is definitely the toughest part because it needs to be succinct, but also include the major features of the subject.  I did a quick copyedit for grammar, changed some wording just a touch.  I think it reads very well!  Great work,  Keeper  |  76 15:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I just changed the introduction a lot. I hope my changes are mostly for the better. Some notes:
1. It would be nice if you had a name for the cyclone that beached the ship.
 Doing...
2. The website source that is cited for reference 6 is no longer active. I don't know if you can still cite it or not.
 Not done Can't locate the missing link, can you copy the ref onto this page?
http://www.timesb2b.com/shipping/mar2004/sbreaking.html (reference for the origin of Sitakunda's ship breaking industry)
 Done it works now.
3. I had a hard time rewording the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph (about the depletion of evergreens and over-fishing). Some help with that would be appreciated.
4. At the risk of sounding insensitive, I think that mentioning the names of so many temples in the 3rd paragraph is not a good idea, because many readers (myself included) will not be familiar with these temples and mosques. If you feel that it's important to name something, I suggest trying to keep the list as short as possible, preferably including only those places of worship that have articles. I hope I haven't offended you by this suggestion.
 Done I have left one mazar and one temple, but you may remove them if you feel that's necessary. I hope I don't look like a religious zealot yet.
That's not what I was thinking. While I understand that the temples are a source of pride for the people of Sitakunda, their names won't mean anything to someone who reads the article but who has no prior knowledge of Sitakunda or its various religions. In other words, I strongly suggest not mentioning the names of temples unless if 1) you explain why they are particularly important, or 2) choose temples that have a Wikipedia article. --Kyoko 13:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't think my current version is perfect, but I do hope that it is an improvement. --Kyoko 13:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Adding this: I think the 2nd paragraph would be stronger if the text "started in 1964 after a ship was beached by a cyclone" were moved out of the introduction altogether, and placed instead within the Economy:Ship breaking section. This would make the first sentence (about ship breaking) flow more smoothly into the second sentence (about criticisms of the ship breaking industry). --Kyoko 15:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and hid (not removed) the text "started in 1964 after a ship was beached by a cyclone". Please let me know if you agree that the paragraph flows better.  Note: I have removed both dates "1964" (for beaching of the ship) and "2001" (for establishing the eco-park) from the lead. No harm.
I also reworded the last sentence of the second paragraph to make it more concise.
I have another suggestion for the lead: I don't think the first paragraph has to say that Bangladesh's first eco-park was established in 2001. That sounds more like trivia to me, and I think its inclusion weakens the sentence. I think this sentence would be more effective:
It is also the home of the country's first eco-park, as well as projects to exploit new sources of energy such as wind energy and geothermal energy.
For that matter, it's redundant to say the word "energy" so many times within one sentence. That should be fixed too. --Kyoko 20:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I have just made more changes, such as hiding (not deleting, so that you can find the reference) the "established in 2001" and rewording the content about wind and geothermal energy. If these changes are acceptable, then the "established in 2001" content and reference should be moved elsewhere in the article.
I also think that the 3rd paragraph description of communal strife needs to be fixed, but I'm not familiar with what sort of conflicts have been involved. --Kyoko 21:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
There are two types of strife here. The first is that "These temples has been repeatedly subject to attack and violation by Muslims" (section: Pilgrimage sites). The other is that "Islamic militant organization Jama'atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) leader Siddikul Islam (also known as Bangla Bhai) ran militant training centers in the Upazila" (section: History). There are also bits of news about sectarian violence spread over the last decade. BTW, I have incorporated the updates into your comments (to keep the context intact). Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've made some more changes to the introduction. In particular, I removed a number of temples whose significance was not asserted, and added brief explanations of a few others. My reasoning is that if too many temples are mentioned in the lead, then it gives a disproportionate amount of emphasis to them.
I added some explanations to the other temples that remain, because I feel that people should be able to read through the introductory paragraphs without being forced to click on every unfamiliar term, such as Shakti Peetha. Certain other terms, such as ashrams, are understandable enough from context that they don't need an explanation in this article.
I've also tried to trim words in the introduction, because it ideally should be thorough yet concise. It's difficult to achieve that. --Kyoko 22:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So difficult that it is virtuallt impossible for me to put together one without a lot of help from you (three occasions) and Fowler&Fowler (one occasion). Alas, Fowler's help is not forthcoming anymore. Needless to say that I completely agree to your edits on the lead. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've skimmed this section, and I'm puzzled by the use of the word celt, which to me means someone associated with Celtic languages or Celtic culture. Is there perhaps another term which is supposed to be used for this section? Thanks. --Kyoko 17:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The link also is leading to the Celtic people. Actually a celt is a small stone (or metal) implement that resembles the head of a hunting axe. Looking for another name. Let's see. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
A celt (see Celt (tool) is IMO a perfectly acceptable term for such an implement in archaeology, and a word quite commonly used for that purpose. Quite likely most folks would be more familiar with the cultural meaning, but I don't think that's a strong reason to abandon the use of a term if it's appropriate to describe the implements as such. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I was asked to leave a note here.  I agree completely with CJLL Wright.  Since the word is linked, it's very clear why and how it is being used and there should be no confusion.  —Wknight94 (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the word had been incorrectly linked to Celt (the person), and not Celt (tool). I have no objection to the use of the word "celt" provided that it is correctly linked, which I have just done. I hadn't been aware of other meanings of the word, so thank you for the explanation.
Since I'm here, I have a question about the 1st paragraph: there is a phrase "a fossil wood, shouldered celt". Could someone please explain this, especially the "shouldered" part? Thank you. --Kyoko 14:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The word "Celt (tool)" has been superceded by more specific terms. Vague as its definition was, a "celt" was a stone or bronze tool, I think, never a wooden one. The major problem with the statement "In 1886, the archaeologist Rakhaldas Bandyopadhyay discovered a fossil wood, shouldered celt..." is that in 1886 Rakhaldas Bandyopadhyay was six years old.--Wetman (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I have figured out the problem - (1) Rakhaldas didn't discover those celts, he mentioned their discovery in his seminal work Bangalar Itihasa (History of Bengal, 1914), and that discovery happened in 1886; (2) the celt were never made of wood, they were shouldered or mounted on fossilwood. My bad copy (upon which depended the successive edits) was about to ruin the whole understanding. And, as far as I know Rakhaldas would have been one-year-old in 1886, not six. ;P Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify a couple of things further: the artefact described by Rakhaldas is made out of "fossilwood", which is to say from petrified wood that has been completely mineralised- so it's made from a sedimentary rock, essentially, that was found as such and fashioned into an adze or celt. Not, of course, made from wood which then fossilised, or made from non-mineralised fossil wood.
Also, "shouldered celt" has a specific meaning in this context. A "shouldered" lithic blade implement is in general one where the sides of the tool's butt-end have been trimmed, producing a sort of neck that widens out to form the 'shoulders' of the tool (looks a bit like the metal head of a spade). These come in various forms, but in this context there's apparently a particular variant of "shouldered celt" tool that has been recovered from lithic assemblages distributed along the China coast, its southern hinterlands, many other places in SE Asia, as well as this particular region of the eastern Indian subcontinent. Their presence/spread across this region has been used to suggest various archaic migrations and diffusions. I believe in the 30s and 40s Heine-Geldern even coined the term schulterbeilkultur ("shoulder[ed]-axe-culture]]") for what he he thought had been an originating culture that spread these shouldered celts, and who he identified as the proto-Austro-Asiatics. This association is pretty much discounted now; others have argued that these shouldered celts are associated with a Tibeto-Burman migration into the Bengal area, with the shouldered lithic tradition originating in Sichuan. The overall distribution of these celts is apparently highly diffuse, however, so they probably aren't generally interpreted these days by themselves as markers of any particular culture.
I'd agree with Wetman that 'celt' can be a pretty vague description and that its use may be waning, although it's still reasonably common in fields like Mesoamerican archaeology for eg. However, unless the sources are more specific about the nature of the artefact (be it an adze, axe or whatever), then it's probably safer to follow the source's terminology and description. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd say we were a long way from the "source", a history of Bengal apparently in Bengali, published in 1914, which may not even have used the English word "celt". I think we're all in the dark here, and the text shows it. Over and out!--Wetman (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Banglapedia does, and the annotated version of Rakhaldas's book does (the original book is written in Bengali). I have tried to fixed the copy. Please, check. BTW, Banglapedia is available online, and therefore, highly verifiable. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sitakunda has one cyclone shelter, each with a capacity of sheltering 50 to 60 people, for about 5,000 people — 11 at Syedpur Union, seven at Baraiyadhala, four each at Sitakunda municipality, Barabkunda, Bhatiary and Bansbaria, eight at Muradpur, five at Kumira, two at Sonaichhari and three at Salimpur Union. 
Pls clarify the line, Sitakunda has one cyclone shelter. Do u mean that there is one shelter at Sitakunda town??? Amartyabag  TALK2ME 06:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Does the current copy work alright? Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is in many ways an excellent article, and I can see that a lot of work has been put into it. I've reviewed it according to the good article criteria, and I do have a few issues that I think need to be addressed before it can be listed as a GA.

I'm concerned about some of the prose, but I understand that may be at least partly due to some of the editors not being native English speakers, so I'll do what I can to help with that. I see from the talk page that at least one member of the LoCE has been involved with this article in the recent past, so it may be an idea to see if he or she would look over it again.
"The Sitakunda fold is an elongated, asymmetrical, box-type double plunging anticline ... This anticline is one of the few regularly surveyed structures in Bangladesh." Any particular reason why this anticline is regularly surveyed?
 Done
"After the earthquake of 2 April 1762, which caused a permanent submergence of 155.4 square kilometres (60 sq mi)". That seems suspiciously precise. Was it exactly 155.4 sq km, or was it about 155 sq km?
 Not done The sources clearly mentions the number. But, if necessary I can change it to 155, of course.
If that's what the source says, then fine, but the precision of both numbers should match. I've made that change. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.
"... the population density of Sitakunda was 568 per kilometer". Presumably that should be square kilometre? Needs an imperial conversion as well.
 Done
"As of August 2007, over 1.5 million tons of iron are produced ..." What flavour of tones are those? Long tons? Needs a conversion.
 Done
"In a census among the fishing population in the Latifpur village of the Upazila, it was found that the members of the traditional Hindu fisher caste are more skilled in fishing." How can a census prove skill at anything?
 Done That would be a survey. English fixed.
I think that there's enough information on transport in the Economy section to warrant its own section, which I'd prefer to see.
 Done
"Sitakunda was to be the original landing station for the submarine communications cable, which was shifted to Cox's Bazaar. The cable has been severed by miscreants dozens of times in the year." Why are people severing the cable so frequently, or even at all? And if the cable isn't actually in Sitikunda anyway, is this information really relevant?
 Remark: The incidents are under investigation, no report published, hence no motive established. The original landing station becomes a site for repeated vandalism - that's kind of worth noting.
I guess that I don't understand what's being said here then. First of all, what cable is this, where does it come from? Is it deliberate to call it the submarine communications cable, implying that there's only one and that everyone will be familiar with it? So far as the vandalism is concerned, if the cable goes through Sitakunda and is vandalised there, then yes, it's notable. Otherwise I'm not certain what the point of mentioning it is.
Oh! Sorry about that. For Bangladesh it is the submarine cable alright (I didn't even know that other countries have more than one). And yes, it runs through Sitakunda (sans the landing station, of course), therefore making the vandalism possible. Should I try to clarify things a bit by looking up further information? Or, would a little tweaking of the copy would solve it?
"After Sultan Ghiyasuddin Mahmud Shah (reign: 1533-38), of the last dynasty of the Sultanate of Bengal, was defeated in 1538 by Sher Shah Suri of the Sur Dynasty, the Arakanese captured the region. Keyakchu, son of Chendi, established a monastery in Sitakunda. Chendi, who adopted the name Chandrajyoti, was a king of Chittagong and Arakan. From this time onwards till the Mughal invasion Sitakunda was under the control of pirates of Portuguese and Magh origins. In 1666, Mughal commander Bujurg Umed Khan conquered the area." I don't understand this. Were the Arakanese pirates? How did Portuguese pirate become involved?
 Done Please check if its clear.
"When the British colonial government withdrew in 1947 ...". When did the British colonial government arrive? In 1858, on the dissolution of the British East India Company?
 Done Please check if it is clear.
What are the main towns in the area? Sitakunda Town is mentioned, is that it?
 Remark: No major towns other than the Sitakunda Town. But, minor towns can be incorporated, if necessary. Please, let me know.
Depends how minor the minor towns are I think. The population of Sitakunda Upazila is nearly 300,000. The article doesn't give a population for the town of Sitakunda, which it probably ought to if that's the only town of any significant size, along with a note describing where the rest of the population lives; in villages presumably? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 Doing... Understood.  Done Added population and area of the only urban area (municipality, the lowest tier of townships in Bangladesh), and added a note to clarify the rural status of the rest of the area. Composition of the broad administrative organization of villages is already there.
I think that the lead is a little unbalanced. Almost half of it is concerned with mosques and other religious issues, which is not in balance with the article itself.
 Remark: Is it possible to help me identify what more should be in the lead? I have worked too long on and too hard on this article to make proper judgments or evaluation.
 Doing... Started on the lead. May the force be with me.  Done Jai Ma Kali.
This is not yet a comprehensive list of what I think needs to be done, but hopefully it's enough to get the editors started. I think that there's quite a bit of work needed, but not an impossible amount to get done in the seven day hold period if everyone works together. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Partly done. My comments appear together with the issues. Hopefully this will be solved in the seven days time. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


### The second round of issues
There are five broken links in the References section, which you can see here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 Done Please check.
"The Sitakunda Hill Range acts as a water divide between the Halda Valley and the Sandwip Channel." It was called the Sitakunda range in the Geography section, and in the image caption. What's the official name? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 Done "Hill" is just an expression, the name is "Sitakunda Range".
"Both formations were identified and named by P. Evans." Who is P. Evans? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 Remark: A geologist from the first half of the century, who probably operated out of Cambridge, and is most noted for his monograph published by the Geological Magazine - "The geology of the Assam-Arakan oil region". Should I create a stub for him and link it here?
No need for a stiub, it would be enough just to say something like "... named by geologist P. Evans."
"... Chittagong Steel House started scrapping MD Alpince, a 20,000-ton Greek ship ...". Are these metric tons or long tons? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 Done Deadweight tonnage is measured in metric tonnes for quite some time.
(reduced indent) Another round of issues addressed. Haven't started on the lead (need help on that, at least in the form of counsel). Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"During the sixth and seventh centuries CE, the Chittagong region was ruled by the Kingdom of Arakan[7] and the Pagan Kingdom (or Mrauk U)". That's suggesting that it was ruled by both, simultaneously. Should it say something like "... first by the Kingdom of Arakan ad then by the Pagan Kingdom"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 Done Largely rewrote the whole paragraph, please check.
"Sitakunda was hit by cyclones in 1960, 1963, 1970, 1988, 1991, 1994 and 1997. Among these the cyclones of 29 May 1963, 12 November 1970, 29 April 1991 made landfall here." I'm not sure what this means; how could Sitakunda have been hit by the cyclone of 1988, say, if it didn't make landfall? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 Done Replaced "hit" with "affected".
"... 5,060 for mauzas and 5,060 for villages reported by the census.[26] Out of the 69 mouzas here ...". Is one of these a typo? What is a mauza/mouza (the wikilink is red)? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 DoneTypo fixed. It's a mauza.


### The third round of issues
"The fledgling ship breaking industry began in 1964 when Chittagong Steel House started scrapping MD Alpince, a 20,000 metric tons (19,684 LT) Greek ship that had been accidentally beached near Fouzdarhat by a tidal bore four years earlier ... The ship breaking industry formally started in 1974 when Karnafully Metal Works started scrapping Al Abbas, a Pakistani ship damaged in 1971." I'm uncleat what "formally" means in this context. Did the indusry start in 1964 or 1974? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I was "uncleat" (unclear?-oh the irony) I had previously added "informally" to the first sentence to try to address the inconsistency, changed my mind, and was going back to remove it but you already had.  I'm looking at it again, but the whole paragraph makes my eyes go crossed. Keeper  |  76  |  Disclaimer 15:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I changed it a bit, see diff.  Not thrilled, but better.  Keeper  |  76  |  Disclaimer 15:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Tweaked a bit more. I hope it imparts some sense now. Sorry about the confusing prose that was (my bad). Please, check. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
"Mohiuddin Ahmed is the Officer-in-Charge (OC) of Sitakunda police station." I think this is probably too much detail, and isn't really notable. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 Done removed  Keeper  |  76  |  Disclaimer 16:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
"Joseph Dalton Hooker (1817–1911) carried out the first survey of local flora on his return to Kolkata from his survey of the flora there ...". This doesn't seem to make sense. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 Done rephrased for clarity  Keeper  |  76  |  Disclaimer 16:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Tweaked a bit more to clarify what happened. Please, check. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
"The park (405 hectors) and the garden (403 hectors) ...". Presumably this is meant to be hectares? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 Done changed to hectares  Keeper  |  76  |  Disclaimer 17:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


### Copyediting
I was the original copyeditor for this article, making around 200-250 grammatical changes in late December (or possibly early January).  I'll look over it again a bit today, but it is a weekend and I won't have much access to a PC today (about another hour) and no access tomorrow.  I'll attack it again on Monday!  Cheers,  Keeper  |  76  |  Disclaimer 16:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, take a look at the lead when you can. It apparently is unbalanced (i.e. more emphasis on pilgrimage sites than the rest). Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe the lead is fine (better balanced) how it reads at this timestamp. One man's opinion though.   Keeper  |  76  |  Disclaimer 16:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


### Treading a fine line
Reviewers have to tread a fine line between commenting on an article and contributing to it; I feel that I'm in danger of stepping over that line, and therefore may not be able in all conscience to provide a properly disinterested decision at the end of the hold period.
The outstanding issue for me remains the need for copyediting, to which I have tried to contribute as much as I can. If that issue can be addressed within the hold period, then I will still be prepared to pass this article, but as the reviewer I don't feel I can contribute any more myself without compromising my neutrality. One thing I will promise though is that if I do have to fail this article, then I will do everything I can to help the editors get it up to the GA standard, for another reviewer to decide. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, quite a marathon this one, but I now feel happy to list this article as a GA. Particular thanks have to go to Aditya Kabir for responding with patience to my apparently never-ending list of issues and to Keeper76 for substantially contributing to the major task of copyediting.
Congratulations to everyone involved with this article! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's great news!!  Congrats go to Aditya!  Well done!  Keeper  |  76  |  Disclaimer 21:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried with google but couldn't find any material that supports this claim. It seems that some third party references are supporting Alang as world's largest ship breaking yard 1. Can't we modify this claim properly? -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there may be a semantic difference here.  Alang may very well be the largest ship breaking yard (meaning one company I presume?)  Sitakunda, as far as I can read, claims to have (with sources of course) the largest ship breaking industry (implying several yards).  A bad analogy is in order perhaps:  McDonalds is the largest restaurant chain in the world.  Certainly no one would claim it to be the largest restaurant though.  Keeper  |  76  |  Disclaimer 15:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You have figured out a nice point. As an industry (not as a single firm or yard) it is probably the largest one. We need a third party reference. I'll let you know if I get one. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
There already are more than one. Just go through the article. It's not generally recommended that you put cites in the lead, unless the lead is the only material you have. If and when you work on an article, please, try to put in-line citations in the body, not the lead. The lead is a summary of the body, not stand alone text. For use of the lead see WP:LEAD. The lead section you tagged had about 20 or so in-line cites, which were removed as per the GA review. If you checked the history you would have known that too. Thanks. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I got it boss :-). -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 19:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The issues raised need to be worked on. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused by this stating that there are 61 mauzas in Sitakunda, while this gives two further figures in the Sitakunda section: 69 in the table, and 59 in the following text!?! Does anyone know which is correct? --Red Sunset 22:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A further question: is Hammadyar Dighi a lake, a reservoir, or something similar? --Red Sunset 19:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Attempting to answer:
I'd prefer to go with the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) number, as it is more updated than the Banglapedia number (61). I'd also go with the number in the table (69), as the the number in the following text (59) seems to be a printing/typing error (a duplication of the number of villages? looks so). As far as I understand, the number of mauzas and other divisions don't go down in Bangladesh, a country with a rapidly growing population.
Hammadyiar Dighi is what used to be known as a water tank in the colonial times (i.e. a very large pond). Nowadays, I guess, these water bodies are better known as water reservoirs.
Did this help? Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thank-you Aditya. I wasn't sure if "tank" as used in the original text was a poor translation, but now I can rephrase the wording better. Your comment on the number of mauzas raises another question however: is the number likely to grow? --Red Sunset 11:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

আমার দেশ

Mdsarwaruddinctg (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Anomie, you marked the section as non-free. Can you explain please? Thank you for your cooperation. - Rafi Bin Tofa (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

No I didn't. That was User:Aditya Kabir in this edit. Anomie⚔ 14:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I checked with Earwig's Copyvio Detector and it had almost 30% confidence that copyvio has occured. Since I hope to put the article to FA discussion someday, this level of confidence is not very acceptable. :D Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Dear Aditya, first of all please clear the fact to me about copyvio. Does it mean i copied the text and then put it in the section? Thank you. - Rafi Bin Tofa (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
No, it definitely doesn't. 30% confidence means there are enough exact phrases from the sources kept in the copy that can indicate a copyvio. I can fix the problem myself, or you can do that too. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your cooperation. Please help me out by fixing it. - Rafi Bin Tofa (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Not necessarily. It just indicates there is a possibility of copyvio. The linked article is 47 pages long and the offending section is half a dozen sentences. However it is so poorly written and the context is completely missing that I am just going to remove it as an editorial decision. I am not saying if it is or isn't a violation. AIRcorn (talk) 09:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@Aircorn:, thank you for your contribution. I admit that, i written the section poorly. I will give my full effort to create a goodly written texts in future. Again, Thank you.- Rafi Bin Tofa (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)