Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lê Thánh Tông/archive1

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20 January 2021 [1].

Lê Thánh Tông

Nominator(s): Laska666 (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Vietnamese king Le Thanh Ton, the last "great" king of classical Southeast Asia. Laska666 (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Lê Thánh Tông.jpg wrong licensing, the work of art is not two-dimensional
File:Map of Later Lê dynasty during the reign of Lê Thánh Tông (1460-1497).png needs verifiable source for the information encoded in the map
Sandwiching issue in Economic policy section, contrary to MOS:LAYOUT

(t · c) buidhe 00:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the editor was recently reported at ANI[2] (t · c) buidhe 05:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal I would suggest taking this article through the good article process and/or seeking a peer review as a first step; unfortunately at the moment the article seems to be well off the FA criteria. Some specific concerns:

Given the length of the article as a whole the lead should be considerably longer
Some areas are lacking citations, for example the second paragraph of Early life
Style problems, including inline external link, hyphens used where dashes should be, repeated wikilinks, etc
Issues with neutrality of phrasing, for example in the statement that "The luxury of spending the energy of his youth in study made him the most erudite man of his generation". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is perhaps because this sentence is word for word the same as the source. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild

Per Nikkimaria I don't think that this is yet ready for FAC. As well as the issues identified above, there is:

A lot of duplinking.
On the only source I checked, uncomfortably close paraphrasing. "In 1470 Thánh Tông issued a edict against people shaving their heads unless they were legitimate Buddhist monks or temple wardens suggests a suspicion of people seeking to impersonate temple dwellers to avoid field work. Despite this seeming inclination to curb the activities of monks and priests, in 1467, amidst an invasion of crop-destroying insects, the king sent Daoist priests to exercise their occult powers against the calamity; he also ordered that sacrifices be made to "all the deities" to stop the infestation." against the source.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Hog Farm

I found the same copyright violations as Gog, to the extent that I almost wonder if "copying and pasting" is a better phrase for that than "close paraphrasing". These copyright violations need cleaned up before the article is taken to FAC. FAC is supposed to be for articles that are ready, not ones that have significant issues. Hog Farm _Talk 00:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've removed a ton of copyvio - direct copying from GBooks sources - and have listed the article at WP:Copyright problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: - Thanks for doing that. Although my oppose still stands, as I think if an article has to actively be listed at copyright problems, it shouldn't be at FAC. Hog Farm _Talk 05:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Archiving per above -- I'd suggest Peer Review or looking at the FAC mentoring scheme before considering another nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.