Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mother Teresa/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) 03:22, 17 December 2016 [1].

Mother Teresa

Nominator(s): ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 17:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a saint of the Catholic Church who has been recently canonised as saint due to Christmas season coming i feel it should be featured on wikipedia ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 17:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tintor

The article looks in good shape but there are somethings that bothered me:

First the lead. Per WP:Lead avoid using quotations or references there since the body is supposed to have them. If it is a controversial statement, try to avoid it.
"Indian views on Teresa are not uniformly favourable." A small sentence in without source. Combine it with another paragraph. Also, avoid short paragraphs. Imagine you are writing a formal letter. Same with reference 40.
"In 1991, Mother Teresa returned for the first time to her homeland and opened a Missionaries of Charity Brothers home in Tirana, Albania." This is also unreferenced. Regarding "On 13 March 1997, she stepped down from the head of Missionaries of Charity. She died on 5 September 1997" I would also recommend it to combine with the previous or next paragraph.

Other than that, the article suffers from similar issues with tags placed in similar place. Ping me like "@Tintor2:" once you think the issues I mentioned were solved. Also, if you have free time, Ii would appreciate if you take a look at my FAC. Regards and good luck with this article.Tintor2 (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2: I think the above discussed problems are almost resolved, Aren't they do feel free to contribute for the same and commenting to make it more better Thanks for giving your valuable time for it --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 17:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but it still have some issues like the unreferenced "Its mission was to care for, in her own words, "the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the crippled, the blind, the lepers, all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone."" and "On the Hindu right, the Bharatiya Janata Party clashed with her over the Christian Dalits ("untouchables"), but praised her in death, sending a representative to her funeral.[citation needed]".Tintor2 (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vensatry

Comment – Two things: (I) It appears the nominator is relatively new to editing and has not made any edits to the article; also it seems they haven't consulted any of the top contributors. (II) They have opened this FAC with the sole intent of taking the article to TFA on 25 December. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply for the above:@Vensatry: I agree that I am new to it but there is no such hard rules that I cant contest any TFA nomination, And i am searching some highly experienced editor which will help me in this article if u know anyone do suggest me , req (comment II) the same has been said in lead paragraph. Is there any need for such comments? Do correct me if u believe I am wrong --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 17:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not meaning to discourage you, but it seems you're totally unaware of how the process works. Yes, there's no 'hard rule' for TFAs, except that the articles should be existing FAs. To nominate an article for FAC, you should be a major contributor, or at least should've consulted the top contributors. Above all, it gives me an impression that you're not aware of the FA criteria. To benefit the first timers, the community has made a proposal that editors are strongly encouraged to seek the help of FAC mentors. Hope this helps! —Vensatry _(talk) 17:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: It gives me extreme joy to inform u that I have discussed the same with mentor @Jimfbleak: and he has been guiding me a lot thanks for informing me for the same. Thanks for your valuable time u gave to comment on the article --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 18:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked @Tiven2240: and the page is a former GA. Is it possible to a B become FA without a GA review? Anyway, the FACs can be quite hard so I wonder if the nominator User:Vensatry is motivated to work in this article to make it first GA. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my advice was that it couldn't be made a FA in the time scale (before 25 Dec) that the nominator suggested. to answer the question above, it doesn't have to have been a GA (mine rarely are), but it's advisable for an inexperienced FA editor Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiven2240: There's no need to be hyperactive. You did not even care to check the link, did you? As far as I can see, Jim hasn't given you a green signal. Yet, you have straight away nominated a delisted GA without even caring to check for improvements. Tintor2, articles (of course, they should meet the FA standards) can be nominated for FAC without having the need to go through GAN. But in this case, I'm afraid. —Vensatry _(talk) 18:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: I have read the link when it was put forth on Jim's talkpage i was aware of the same u discussed but It was @Jimfbleak: widely said that discussion should be taken on it. Regarding you afraid in this topic i say u try your best to make it best as I believe noone is perfect but we must try to be i am aware Jim said it's not possible for the article to be featured on Christmas day but one day I think I will see the article flourished on wikipedia's featured place and I hope u too help in making the article great @Tintor2: Thanks for your contribution ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 07:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry but aside from the process issue of the nominator not having prior involvement with the article (a practical point, as without such involvement it's usually difficult to deal with critical commentary) the article appears underprepared with several fact tags and uncited passages; I'll therefore be archiving it shortly. If the nominator would be prepared to invest the time in becoming familiar with the article and perhaps taking advantage of the FAC mentoring program, a future nomination might well be possible. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2016 (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) 03:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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