Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Karnataka

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 15:54, 26 July 2007.

Karnataka

[edit]

Karnataka is one of the states in India. This article has had a collaboration from Karnataka WikiProject members. The article has undergone a several rounds of copyedits, and is equipped with ample references, images, and significant sections that are necessary and required in an Indian state article. The article is written in summary style in Indian English. Each of the sections is expanded in detail in its own sub-article, for greater details and references covering that section.

The article has completed peer reviews at India WikiProject as well as the at the general Peer review.

I request constructive feedback from other editors, that could help improving the article further, and building the consensus towards taking it to FA. Thanks, - KNM Talk 03:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I've never seen anyone win around here with that argument.--Rmky87 16:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, despite having great daughter articles, this article must have citations as needed/demanded. This is an independent article in summary style, with appropriate link to appropriate daughter/related articles. However, per FA criteria 1c, it must have appropriate citations. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Adequate citations and references have been added now to the "History" section. Thanks. - KNM Talk 19:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify what KNM said, I want to point out the relevant policy. WP:SS says -
"There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point. The policy on sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, says that sources must be provided for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations."
  • I'd also like to note that several(nearly a hundred) citations were removed from the article in the last few weeks. This was done because the citations themselves ran into nearly 15kb and the article was getting bloated. But if editors here feel that we misunderstood the policy, please let us know. Bringing the citations back shouldnt be a problem at all. Sarvagnya 07:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why a separate "Religion' section that largely discusses history of religions? Information given in this section should be incorporated in "History", "Demography", "Culture" etc. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a section on "Divisions" can be created mentioning the administrative divisions (districts), with a map with locators. Some information on districts that has been given in "Demography' can be incorporated in 'Division" as well.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the religion section is pretty much fine as it discusses whole lot of useful information. As per the division section is concerned, I feel that listing all districts in the main article is not really necessary. A link to districts of Karnataka should serve the purpose. Listing all districts in this article is more information than needed for this summary style article IMHO. Gnanapiti 04:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dwaipayan's points are well taken. But, I do not feel that the Religion section is not really out of place considering the fact that Religion has always been an integral part of people's lives in India, infact around the world. And anybody reading an article about a region/place will certainly be interested in its "Religion" of its people, just as he'd be interested in History or Geography of the region.
  • I agree that the contents of this section can be hived off into other sections, but I am not convinced that it is really necessary. Come to think of it, there is always bound to be some 'overlap' between history/religion/culture sections, but imo they have to be treated seperately and care has to be taken not to repeat any info across sections. If need be, perhaps a few more lines can be added to the Religion section itself describing the "present" situation with regards to religion in Karnataka. We could probably explore moving "Religion" as a subsection of "History" or "Culture"(just as "climate" is a subsection of "Geography"), but then again, I am not sure it is really necessary. Just my 2 cents. Sarvagnya 06:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Divisions or names of districts is needed, history section needs more references. Sections must be organised accordingly. See West Bengal for references. Amartyabag TALK2ME 05:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. ok.. a list of districts was infact a part of the article until about a month ago. But the listing was looking awkward and taking too much space and was removed. We could perhaps add a section like in the West Bengal article mentioning the divisions in prose form. Sarvagnya 06:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments contd. First, I have not read the whole article, so my comments may be incomplete/partially applicable. Please do not mind, and rectify me if needed.
I still hold my view that the content of "Religion" section can be incorporated in other sections such as History, Demographics, Culture etc. Information contained in this section can be further summarized, because it discusses only the history of religion in Karnataka. In fact, it can be renamed "History of religion". Now think, does an article on a state need a section called "History of religion"? This time, I say an emphatic "no". That is why I am suggesting removal of this section. Dwaipayan (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While some of the sentences from religion section can be moved and absorbed in other sections, others fit perfectly in the current section with the name Religion. Advaita, Vishistadvaita, Dvaita, Madhvacharya, Adi Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Veerashaivism, Basava and their relevance to Karnataka is significant and it is required to be mentioned in the article. These information fit well together as a group under Religion section.
Also, I do not think it discussed only the history of religion in Karnataka. Like sentences such as "Udupi, Sringeri, Gokarna and Melkote are well-known places of Sanskrit and Vedic learning", "This was to form the basis of the Lingayat faith and today counts millions among its followers.", "Today, both Islam and Christianity have a sizeable following in the state and have contributed richly to the cultural cosmopolitanism of the state." and so on. These information talk about present state of affairs on religion in Karnataka and cannot be considered historical information. I hope this helps. - KNM Talk 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not really. "Udupi, Sringeri, Gokarna and Melkote are well-known places of Sanskrit and Vedic learning"—can be includede in "Education"; "This was to form the basis of the Lingayat faith and today counts millions among its followers."—can be told in "Demography", with citation and less rhetorically; "Today, both Islam and Christianity have a sizeable following in the state and have contributed richly to the cultural cosmopolitanism of the state."—repetition (Christian and Muslim percentages mentioned in Demography already) and flowery words. "Shravanabelagola, Mudabidri and Karkala are famous for Jain history and monuments..."—tourist information, although combined with historical perspective nicely. Better be in "Tourism". I have a feeling the section "Tourism" (though I have not read it) would repeat information from other sections such as Flora and Fauna, Geography. Please take care of repetition.
Of course Advaita, Vishistadvaita, Dvaita, Madhvacharya, Adi Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Veerashaivism, Basava and their relevance to Karnataka is significant and it is required to be mentioned in the article. But that can be done, I repeat, in "History", "Culture" etc. This will also probably reduce the readable prose size.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I beg to disagree here. Like I said before, there is bound to be some overlap between sections. But I am not convinced that they cannot exist as seperate sections. Many sentences for that matter can also be made to fit into other sections. But there is no point in doing it just for the sake of doing it. It will only leave the article more chaotic and less focussed. For example, I can point out several sentences in India which can be 'piece-mealed' away into other sections. Taj Mahal, for example can equally be at home in the history section as in the culture section; Details of film industry can be moved to Economy from Culture; Stats of labour force can be carted off into Demographics from Economy; Details of foreign relations can be moved into the Politics section... there just would be no end to it. Similarly, Madhva, Basava etc., can also argued to belong to the History section. But no. They're obviously better off in the Religion section! We only have to take care that we dont repeat info... ie., we dont mention Madhva and Basava both in the history and religion sections.
  • A section on "Religion" is perfectly justified in an article that deals with a state of about 6 crore people of whom only an insignificant percentage(if at all) are counted as atheists. I feel that the section on Religion was quite crisp and well written(could do with a little more cpedit though). I request Dwai to think once again about this and I'd also request other reviewers to chime in. Sarvagnya 20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding need of citations, yes, "...sources must be provided for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged...". And any statistics, numbers or even a simple-looking sentence can be challenged. For example, data in "Demography" need to be referenced. Same goes true for data in economy. Please cite, it will be an easy job since you have excellent supporting/daughter articles. Do not worry about bloating size of inline citations. What matters is "readable prose" size, not the size contributed by citations. See the FAC of Jerusalem where the readable prose size was mentioned in the nomination itself. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these inputs, Dwaipayan. As long as there is no restriction on increased article size, there shouldn't be any problems at all for adding the citations. We'll just need to bring them from the corresponding sub-articles. The requested section (History) is now well-sourced. Thanks. - KNM Talk 21:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also have some reservations on the sections "Language" and "Tourism". Since I have not read these sections, I won't comment now. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on sport section - The first sentence seems to be OR and is not listed in the daughter article with a reference. The sentence about the distinguished swimmers and athletes seem over the top and weaselish, since it doesn't enumerate or name any sportspeople or achievements. The assertion about cricket being most popular is not sourced in the daughter article, the ref given is about ticket prices and you need to to explain popular in terms of TV/Radio/registered participation/ or crowds. I rm "prestigious" from the Ranji Trophy - not needed and POV. Also probably should mention that Mumbai won 15+ ?? times in total otherwise ppl will think that K is the strongest state. I also toned down the thing about the majority being from K, since this occurred in only two matches and were isolated cases, since mostly there were only four regulars from Karnataka in the late 90s (Kumble, Dravid, V Prasad and Srinath). But I think there may be other cases of unintended bias in the article. So more eyes are needed. Onto generalities, the prose did not seem the best (slang like "team India") and there are some ref-formatiing issues. Don't use "Online version of...". simply put "publisher=Cricinfo". Where there is an author, use "first=Roopy|last=Rao" so that it appears "Rao, Roopy" as required. Don't need the copyright everywhere and need to use "date=yyyy-mm-dd" in the cite as I have changed some as required. In the book refs, need "pp. 243-244." not "pp243-244" - full stops and spaces are missing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Page number formats have been updated to include full stops and spaces. Cricket sentence is modified such that it is one of the most popular sports, instead of the most popular sport. - KNM Talk 03:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Copyright information (© yyyy) in several citations have been removed. - KNM Talk 02:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - In all the citations that have used accessdate property, now the date format used is "yyyy-mm-dd". Just now made sure about this for all the citations, and corrected as required. Thanks, - KNM Talk 03:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment- Economy, demography and government section needs to be cited properly disregarding the fact that the factual source is from the subsets of the topic. thanks, Sushant gupta 01:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - First sentence in sports section is removed. Sentence about swimming is modified according to new citation. Mumbai winning highest number of Ranji trophies being mentioned.(37!! Gosh). References are added to Economy, demography and Government sections. Gnanapiti 02:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments "Culture" not comprehensive. Folk arts, music, painting have been covered. But architecture, drama, cinema, festivals needed. Is literature covered in "Language" (I have not read that section yet).--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also missing are dress and food.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Culture section now covers the above mentioned topics. Gnanapiti 15:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments- in the geography section, last para, first line-

...About 38,724 km² (or 20% of Karnataka's geographic area) are covered by forests...
the line doesn't follow WP:MoS. Sushant gupta 01:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Can you please be more specific on where WP:MoS is not followed? The number is comma separated after three least significant digits, which is acceptable per WP:MoS#Scientific_style
The Wikipedia rule for commas and periods in numbers is, for example 12,345,678.901—contrary to Continental style.
Also, km² is acceptable per precedent FA India. Thanks, - KNM Talk 01:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if that is so then why was i opposed when i nominated Himachal Pradesh for FAC. most of them who reviewed the article were the participants of india workgroup only. Sushant gupta 08:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean we need to use Square kilometre instead? Please elaborate and we'll correct it. Or please go ahead and correct yourself whatever you feel is appropriate. Gnanapiti 15:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have not actually read the article yet but just looking at it I see one major problem: Explosion of pictures. Please, keep no more than two images per section. For instance, in the economy section their is no need for the infosys image. Graphs are fine by themselves. Also, the info box image is all messed up on my laptop. --Blacksun 09:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infosys image has been removed from the Economy section. If you could please let us know the exact issue with infobox image, that would help fixing it up. Thank you - KNM Talk 18:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox image is working properly now. However, It is my opinion that their are still a few too many images in the article. I don't think any one section in this article should have more than two images as none of them are that long. But that is more subjective I suppose. I will try to read it later and give more comments. --Blacksun 11:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I have not yet finished reading the article, so will add to the following list:
    • In the Government section:
      • "... with the Governor appointed for five years as the constitutional head.": is it worth mentioning that the Governor is appointed by the President of India ? Also I assume the constitution being refereed to is India's (do Indian states have constitutions ?) ... if so, this may not be clear to a casual reader, and it may be better to use formal/ceremonial head like the Government of Karnataka article does.
  • hmm.. Added ref for this 'constitutional head'. As for pres appointing him.. well.. all Guvs in India hold office 'during the pleasure' of the Pres and are appointed by him. So just thought it was worth mentioning. Sarvagnya 16:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The governor appoints the Chief Minister and his council of ministers ..": while techically accurate, this does not paint the right picture for an uninformed reader. Reword.
      • "Chief Minister and his council of ministers in whom a great deal of legislative power is vested.": I think the CM and CoM have executive powers and can drive the legislative agenda, but the legislative power is formally vested in the Assembly/Council. Please check.
  • Hmm.. technically the Guv is the last word on any administrative matter. The CM and CoM can 'advise' him but the Guv can use his 'discretionary' powers at any point to overrule them. Added ref. Sarvagnya 16:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The important relationship between Legislative Assembly and CM/CoM is not mentioned.
      • "The Executive arm of the Government is headed by Deputy Commissioners ...": IMO the DC heads the administrative arm rather than the executive arm. Please check (and let me know if I am misinformed!)
  • You may be right. It is actually the Governer who heads the executive. So even if DCs are part of the 'executive', they cannot be the 'heads'. Will check. Sarvagnya 16:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is Deputy Commissioners plural, while Deputy Commissioner of Police and Deputy Conservator of Forests are talked about in the singular?
      • "strange animal" -> chimaera
      • "The emblem also carries two strange animals with the face of an elephant and the body of a lion. This state emblem is carried on all official correspondence of the Government of Karnataka." Relevance ?
    • In the Economy section:
    • In the Transport section:
      • "... a project that is regarded as one of the feats of Indian engineering for several reasons." doesn't make grammatical sense, and again sounds POV. Not to belittle the achievement but remember that for an international audience an engineering feat is something like the Panama canal or the Chunnel. The overall section is well-balanced though.
I've changed the sentence and perhaps toned down a bit to "India's biggest railway project of this century" referenced from a release from Press Information Bereau of India. Gnanapiti 16:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - References added. Gnanapiti 15:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General references are added to the second paragraph. Listings of Wild animals, birds, species of trees are reduced now. - KNM Talk 18:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Tourism section:
      • Need reference for protected monuments statistics.
      • "Another 25,000 monuments have yet to receive protection." What does this mean ?
      • "...21 wildlife sanctuaries ..." 21 or 25 as mentioned in previous section. Reference would help.
      • "Recently Karnataka has emerged as a hot spot for health care tourism in India, attracting health tourists from all over the world." Second part of sentence (starting from in India.. ) is redundant.
Reply - Reference added for protected monuments. Fixed number of wildlife sanctuaries(25). Removed redundant part in the sentence.Gnanapiti 15:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Reference section:
      • John Keay, History of India -> India: A history
Reply - Fixed book name. Gnanapiti 15:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare 10:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article is well written. Some items to take care of:
    • Lead:
      • Jnanapith awards are mentioned in lead, but not expanded later.
Reply - Expanded in "Language" section. - KNM Talk 02:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • comprises 27 district missing "of"
Reply - Corrected. - KNM Talk 02:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up: KNM did correct it, but I changed it back to "comprises", based on [1] Abecedare 02:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Karnataka is the only state in India that has significantly contributed to both forms of Indian classical music, the Carnatic music and Hindustani music traditions. Sounds POV. A possible restatement could be Karnataka has contributed significantly...
Reply - Modified accordingly. - KNM Talk 02:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • History:
      • Could use a sentence or two about freedom fighters in 1800s and 1900s
Since Dinesh is the major contributor for History section, I guess we'll wait for him to come and add a sentence or two. I've informed him. Gnanapiti 03:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I have added a paragraph covering the freedom movement in the 19th and 20th century. It has some red links but will create stubs soon. Sarvagnya 09:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Geography:
      • Some terms wikilinked multiple times like "Western Ghats" and "Archaen". There may be more.
Reply - Removed the additional wikilinks to "Archean" and "Western Ghats" in "Geography" and "Flora and fauna" sections respectively. Will look out for more such instances in other sections of the article, and correct them as required. Thanks. - KNM Talk 03:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some terms could use a wikilink like "gneisses". I didn't know what they were. Someone should try the auto wikilink tool on this page and pick any relevant links it offers.
Reply - "gneiss" was already wikilinked, in an earlier sentence ( the Archean complex made up of Dharwad schists and granitic gneisses,... ). However, Wikilinked few more not-so-common words in this section. - KNM Talk 02:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sub divisions:
      • Each district is subdivided into Sub-Divisions, governed by a sub-divisional magistrate. Too many "subdivide"s.
Reply - Replaced the word "subdivided" with "divided". - KNM Talk 02:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This section could be merged with the Government and administration section.
Reply - There was already a discussion about adding this section, during this FAC. And as per other reviewers, and especially as per other India state FAs, (West Bengal, Kerala), "Sub divisions" has to be an independent section. Hope that clarifies. - KNM Talk 02:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Government:
      • ''The administration is each district is headed by a Deputy Commissioners. The first "is" should be "in". Commisioners should lose the "s".
Reply - Corrected. - KNM Talk 02:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the rest of the article yet. Lotlil 22:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and comments, Lotlil. - KNM Talk 02:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The lead section may need a few references, but that is a minor issue.Bakaman 04:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All points in the lead are later expanded in different sections with most of them carrying references to the best of my knowledge. If you still feel we need to add some references, I'll go ahead and add them. Please let me know what you think. Gnanapiti 05:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Economy:
    • is one of the economically more progressive states in India. Sounds POV. May be the national average figure or the state's rank could drive home the point.
    • The paragraph on manufacturing could be modified a bit. Instead of listing companies, it may be better to list the items manufactured like aircraft (?), heavy machinery etc. If the data is easy to find, we could present some figures indicating why the state is a hub for manufacturing these items.
    • ISRO in the manufacturing para seems out of place.
Reply - This has been addressed to make it more clear that ISRO is a Science and Technology institute. Naveen (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A separate para on prominent companies headquartered in Karnataka could be useful. The info is already in the text, just needs to be reformatted (like the companies in manufacturing para, IT, ISRO, bio tech etc).
Reply - This section of manufacturing now mentions non-manufacturing companies which are headquartered in Karnataka. Naveen (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up - I was thinking this could be made a para by itself - highlighting the major companies that are headquartered in the state. Not too keen on it, though. Lotlil 02:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This feat has earned Bangalore the sobriquet, Silicon Valley of India. The text currently implies that the tag came about because of the 2006-07 achievement, which is not true. The tag could be added seamlessly to the first line of the para.
Reply - Sentence restructured to clarify the context. Naveen (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • at the forefront of the rapid strides that India has been making. Needs to be toned down a bit. May be just say something like Karnataka leads other states in biotechnology....
    • Biocluster of 158/300 part needs citations.

Lotlil 18:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference added for biocluster. Toned down biotechnology sentence. Merged silicon valley sentence with first sentence in the para. Gnanapiti 18:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I have perused about half the article in detail and pointed out some minor issues above, which have been addressed. A quick glance over the rest of the sections didn't point to any must-fix item. Will continue to comment on the finer details until this FAC is open. Appreciate the constructive team work on this article. Lotlil 01:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Can any one add a photo of any or some local newspapers?? Though this is not a criteria. bUt will enhance the article. Amartyabag TALK2ME 06:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The media section now has a photo of one of the popular local newspapers. Thanks for your constructive feedback. -- Naveen (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support overall, but needs some more editing (2(a)):
    • This article appears comprehensive. Good job, guys.
    • Some unidiomatic/eccentric phrasing (e.g., "finding pride of place in the state"
    • Droll: "hand-axe culture evidenced by discoveries of, among other things, hand axes". De-uglify this by adding more details.
    • A small problem w/ touristy/booster-ish loaded language: "boasts" (why not "hosts" or "has produced"?), Karnataka is a remarkable state with a fascinating history/culture; let the raw facts tell the story and strip out unnecessary stuff. Allow readers to come to their own conclusions.
    • a few extra commas may be needed to clarify sentence meaning and distinguish clauses
    • Some ungrammatical phrasing (e.g., "evidences of"—I've fixed this and several other examples).
    • Most wording/grammar issues appear to have been resolved
    • Ping Nichalp. To start, he'll be wondering why:
      • sections are begun with left-aligned images (looks ugly/makes text hard to read—I agree w/ this)
      • charts are not svg (would look better and be *much* easier to update when new stats are published—agree also)
  • It's great to see that another state is about to be featured. Overall, I liked reading this article and learned interesting things. Saravask 22:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and General comment - This article has been a enormous exercise in copyediting (atleast as far as my contributions on wiki are concerned). The article increased dramatically in size in the last couple of months and it has taken some frenzied cleanup, pruning, copyediting, wikilinking etc., by the WP:KAR members. In terms of numbers, the article shot up from around 45kb in may to nearly 80kb before some serious copyediting brought it back to around 58k (several 'downstream' articles were created in the process). It shot up once again(thanks greatly to Amar) to over 90k and was copyedited back to about 70k. A bulk of the citations were then done away with and the article was brought further down to around 55k. Now that editors here demanded that the citations be added back, it was done and the size is back in the 70s.
  • All these cycles of adding info, pruning, cpeditng... in quick succession have meant that the article has suffered slightly in terms of style (the 'unidiomatic' stuff that Saravask talks about). I suspect that this also has to do with the fact that the WP:KAR editors have been at it far too long and must just be weary of the never ending cpedits(its true atleast in my case). I am sure that these 'style issues' can be ironed out in a few rounds of cpedits by some fresh pair of eyes. In the meanwhile, I certainly feel that it is FA material and support its promotion. And also appreciate all those who have taken the pains to go through the article, review and cpedit it. Sarvagnya 00:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a comprehensive, well organized and illustrated article. As Saravask mentions above, there are a few minor prose and copyediting issues, but those should be easy to resolve especially if a few non-involved editors give the article a quick read-through (I'll try to help with this aspect). Good job overall by an active group of editors in both writing a FA class article and responding to reviewers concerns conscientiously! Abecedare 02:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Superb article, very informative and has great set of illustrative images. NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 06:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article has been one of those that have undergone multiple cp-edits from multiple people and it is now in a good shape containing relevant and comprehensive information related to the state of Karnataka. Few minor style issues (if any) can be rectified easily. However, the article in its current shape looks complete as far as the information that it should contain is concerned and is certainly FA material. Hence I support its promotion. Thanks to all the editors who made this happen. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits09:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support After the multitude of copy edits and addressing all the constructive feedback it has received in this FAC, the article is definitely FA class. I support this promotion. -- Naveen (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Karnataka&oldid=1136096820"