Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nepal/archive2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 19:40, 11 November 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Notified Nichalp, Tony1, El C, WikiProject Nepal, WikiProject Countries
Nepal was promoted to FA status on September 2005. I don't think it currently meets FA criteria per the following points:
- There are only 25 inline citations for 60kb of prose. There are entire paragraphs and even sections without references.
- Despite having a hefty "References" section, most inline citations are from web pages and encyclopedias. I don't think they represent the relevant body of published knowledge as demanded by FA criteria 1c.
- The article lacks consistently formatted inline citations.
- The article suffers from undue weight. Of the seven paragraphs in the lead, four are dedicated to the history of Nepal since 1990. There's a big "Recent developments" sections which deals with the period 2005-2007. There's a "Newar culture" section separated from the "Culture" section and bigger than it plus an "Other aspects of Nepali culture" section. There's a POV tag on the "Military and foreign affairs" section
- Prose needs to be improved. A few examples from the History section
- Neolithic tools found in the Kathmandu Valley indicate that people have been living in the Himalayan region for at least nine thousand years. It appears that people who were probably of Tibeto-Burman ethnicity lived in Nepal two and half thousand years ago
- By the early thirteenth century, leaders were emerging whose names ended with the Sanskrit suffix malla were emerging?
- By late fourteenth century, much of the country began to come under a unified rule. This unity was short-lived; in 1482 the kingdom was carved into three areas Began to come?
- However, the actual war never took place while conquering the Kathmandu Valley
To sum up, this article needs some serious improvement to keep its FA status. --Victor12 00:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per all the above. Some quotes from the article:
- "Newar community has their own calendar, called as Nepal Sambat, which is probably the oldest calendar of indigenous people of Nepal. It is the only native Nepalese Calendar and one the three major Calendars referred by National Newspapers like Gorkhapatra, Kantipur and The Himalayan Times."
- "Nepal is divided into 14 zones and 75 districts, grouped into 5 development regions. Each district is headed by a fixed chief district officer responsible for maintaining law and order and coordinating the work of field agencies of the various government ministries.8 out of ten worlds highest mountains are there in Nepal "
- Prose needs lots of work and the POV and undue weight are the biggest issues. Rocket000 07:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In it's current state, the article can no longer be considered a feature article. I hope it can be fixed up quickly but i fear this won't happen in time and it might be off to FARC. There appears to be only two in-line cites in the history section, the Recent Developments section rambles on far too long, and the lead is longer than most articles on wikipedia! --Merbabu 13:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA crtiteria concerns are references and their formatting (1c and 2c), prose (1a), due weight (4). Marskell 14:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - not enough refs, undue weight, too many things just added on arbitrarily. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - one month after the FAR nomination, there hasn't been much work on the article. User:DaGizza restored the FA promoted version and made a few fixes, as a result, prose has improved but several problems remain as FA criteria has evolved since the article's original nomination in 2005. The main problem is still references, not only because they are too few but also because they are mainly citations of encyclopedias. Not a single one of the books mentioned in the "References" section has been used for inline citations. As for other problems, the lead suffers from recentism and prose should undergo copyediting to meet the well-written requirement at WP:FACR. Thus, in my opinion, the article should be delisted. --Victor12 02:21, 2 November 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.