Wikipedia:Featured article review/Buddhist art/archive1

Buddhist art

Article is still a featured article

Here is the difference between now and when it became featured.

My main reason is the lack of references [2 (c)] for this article. It is surely no longer anywhere near Wikipedia's best work [1] and it is not comprehensive I don't believe [2 (b)]. It could be salvaged but it was an FA from another era and needs to be updated for new expectations. gren グレン ^? 10:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose removal. This is not an FA from "another era", except if beginning of 2005 is indeed another era. References are there, except someone relabelled them "Other Readings", which I corrected. The article has a high level of comprehensiveness, especially in its geographical treatment. Regards. PHG 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PHG. As a suggestion though, it would be nice to have something on contemporary Buddhist art. Mark ¹ 11:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PHG. Given the length of this article (already 31K), I'd suggest that "Contemporary Buddhist art" or "Buddhist art after year N" or whatever be a separate article anyway. Anville 08:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per nomination. The article lacks inline citations (also 2(c)), and should be split up per Wikipedia:Summary style. AndyZ 01:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]