 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article. |
Peer review
edit
I'm not really sure if this is the right place for this, but I mainly wanted to see if people think this source is useable as a source or not. At first it looked like a government publication because they had it on their website, but then I saw that it appears to list a consulting firm as the author, which makes me highly doubtful of whether it's even useable as a source. If not, then I'll need to remove the tourism statistics entirely.
Thanks, 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Comments by AdaCiccone
editWhen it comes to statistical figures like tourism, the most ideal source should be from government sources itself, and maybe combined with a credible third-party, independent source, not from a consulting report. The source isn't unusable but if it has to stay, the wording on the article has to reflect what the source is/represents. The common concern is that casual readers might think 'oh these figures are sourced' and subconciously expect the source to be of government or third-party ones, when in fact it isn't. My suggestion is to find a better source. AdaCiccone (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- I can't find any official sources for this, so it looks like it'll have to go. Darn. Given the relatively modest numbers I can find for other, more famous sites in official sources, though -- about 475,000 visitors to the Ajanta Caves in 2023/24, and about 300,000 to Gwalior -- I doubt that that source's figures were accurate, so it's almost certainly for the better to have it gone. Thanks for the feedback regardless. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2026 (UTC)