Oppose - the link to the kannada wp in the incipit isn't a big idea for a featured article; there isn't an external links sections; there are some bolds non-in the incipit. Questions? You find me in the same page. MOJSKA666 (msg) 14:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the Kannada Wikipedia in the incipit isn't good. There isn't an external link (non-wikipedian link). There are bolds. It's easy... MOJSKA666 (msg) 15:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not having an external links section cannot be a reason to oppose. By bold, probably MOJSKA is referring to the use of bold letters within the body of text.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DK Reply I have removed the Kannada WP link. The only bold letters are those in the section and subsection titles which should be ok. Some titles (sub-sections) are in the format to avoid a long TOC. I am not sure why a FAC without external links should be an issue. thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DK Reply If there is a way I can change the sub-section title format without making the TOC too listy, then I would be glad to make that change.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
External links are not a requirement on FAs or any articles (please review WP:EL); I've pointed this out to Mojska. I don't know what Mojska's oppose is about; I have no problem with this entire discussion being moved to the talk page for sorting out there. It's not an actionable oppose, and I don't know what he's referring to by "bolds". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than one editor of the broader Wikipedia community that has raised the same issue as I have - I'm not going to bother raising it as the basis of an oppose unless it is considered a significant enough problem. It isn't an individual reviewer taste as much as it is a broad concern. I've cited some examples above re: more obvious problems with prose.
I will try to be a little more clear with regards to my concern of factual errors, and as requested, will provide a suggested approach, in my next reply. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The previous nom is erased on restart; Ncmvocalist, please don't remove my comments here, and opposes which refer to the previous nom, without current examples, are not actionable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the FA director (and delegates) need to change their approach, because the current one adopted for this FAC appears to be more of a nuisance than necessarily effective. The only way in which any comment on an FAC is not actionable is if the concerns have been addressed, and therefore are not current. Reviewers have volunteered their precious time to try to leave comments relevant to an FAC - having to say the same thing again is not something reviewers should have to worry about because of the FA director's (perhaps poor) judgement in erasing an entire nom without explanation. At the very least, reviewers could've been asked (for example) to strike the comments that were addressed, prior to such a restart. An FAC is meant to rely on the consensus of the reviewers of the broad Wikipedia community - the fact that the same issues are being raised again is not a failing on the part of the reviewer or the vote. If anything, a failing of the system would only lead to FAs and FACs no longer being recognized in the same esteem as they once were by the very reviewers and WikiProjects who have endorsed their judgements in such FACs, and their faith in the system itself. The concerns I have raised are purely current, and overlap with some of the issues of the previous nom, and is therefore actionable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
