Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
Ramtek(final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which was archivedon 24 May 2026. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
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.
When 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)Reply
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)Reply
