Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bhutan/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 14:20, 23 July 2007.

Bhutan

Review commentary

Messages left at Bhutan and Countries.

This article was last promoted to FA status on 2005, however I feel it does not meet current criteria regarding FA country articles. My main objection is about the (c) "Factually accurate" requirement. There are only 10 footnotes for an article 44kb long. Thus, most paragraphs are unsourced. It needs urgent and major work to incorporate inline citations. There are also several one-sentence paragraphs. For illustration purposes compare it to other country articles that have attained FA status recently such as Cameroon and Japan. --Victor12 00:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should have pinged me on my talk since I helped feature it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also assisted at the time. I can look at the language if Nichalp can help with the references. Tony 09:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can leave this in FAR a little longer if you want to work on it Nichalp. Marskell 15:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to significant citation needs:

WP:UNITS attention needed
External jumps
Mixed reference styles (some imbedded links that need to be converted)
Unformatted Notes and incomplete References

Two weeks have elapsed, no progress, and as far as I can tell, one or two citations have been added. diff since nom. Nothing happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are reference sufficiency and formatting (1c), prose (1a), and structure (2). Marskell 20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I never ever comment on these things normally, but... this article had nothing on the refugee problem which has been in the news again lately (I've since added a short paragraph on it- plenty of Google hits here). Sure, there was a non-referenced paragraph in the History of Bhutan spin-off article, but kicking 100,000 citizens out of a country of ~600,000 is a pretty dramatic event. If this article was missing an event like that, I wonder what else it might be missing? SnowFire 02:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold for another week. ~~Remove~~, mostly uncited, cite needed tags, mixed reference styles, little change in five weeks of FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very busy in real life to see to this at this moment. Could this be suspended for two weeks? I would take care of it in July. Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Keep us informed. Marskell 08:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the citations, but the problem is that I've sourced most of the text from www.loc.gov, which does not provide a static URL for the article on Bhutan. Please advise. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a static address for the main Bhutan page, although individual chapters still have only temporary URLs. Since the country study is published as a printed volume, one solution would be to cite it as a book; chapter information can be provided, although page numbers may be hard to determine. Abecedare 07:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what has been done, but inline citiations would be unnecessary. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should a FA class article rely so heavily on a single source? It seems to me that should not be the case. Furthermore, www.loc.gov only qualifies as a tertiary source. --Victor12 14:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOC contains unlisted references from different sources. And why is LOC a tertiary source? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong wording. What I meant is that LOC, by using "unlisted refereces from different sources", is an encyclopedia and I don't think that, for instance, an article based mostly on its corresponding "Encyclopædia Britannica" entry would pass WP:FAC. --Victor12 15:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you're saying that no single source is credible? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, just that heavily relying on a single source is not enough for FA status. For instance A substantial number of the highest quality reliable sources available on the subject should be consulted thoroughly according to Wikipedia:Featured article advice. --Victor12 18:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the real criteria for featured status is Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. 1c states that Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. There are actually more than one source for the article (the Bhutan portal has been cited), but the problem here are the inline citations which we cant accurately cite. I don't think there is much dispute on the veracity of content made available by LOC (afterall, it's their sole purpose of existence). Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does www.loc.gov + a couple of references from the Bhutan portal and some newspapers accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge? I don't think so, the article deserves better research work. Why are the books in the "Further references" section not used? --Victor12 19:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, three weeks since my last comment, still has mixed reference styles (some inline, some cite.php), unformatted references (see WP:CITE/ES) and doesn't conform with MOS (for example, see WP:MOSNUM on dates). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove: Mainly due to insufficient referencing (especially important and needed for the statistical information given) and MOS issues as mentioned in the FAR commentary. I would also note to merge one-sentence or short paragraphs and to prosify the Cities and towns section. --RelHistBuff 10:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per Sandy's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 23:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But Sandy isn't saying to remove :-) Nichalp did have several running at once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ah, sorry, Lucifer; I did have a remove further up, that I've just changed to Hold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this now holds the record for longest. Ah, but records are made to be broken. I just feel bad for poor Nichalp, who had a bunch of his up at once. Another week/ten days to see if work begins. Marskell 18:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; he's worked tirelessly and skilfully to advance the quality of articles on the subcontinent. Tony 15:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: Eleven weeks now; I think this will have to go :(. I'll leave a note for Nichalp. Marskell 14:16, 23 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.