Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Partition of India/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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.

[edit] Partition of India

Nominating for FA status. --Maclean1 03:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment:

1. Get rid of {{fact}} templates by providing inline citations.
2. Quotations that are in {{cquote}} need to have inline citations, too.--Crzycheetah 04:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Strong Oppose:
• There are a number of problems with this article. First and foremost, don't you think you should have brought this up on the Talk Page of the article first, rather than nominating it for FAC out of the blue, especially as someone who has no history of working on the article? There are a number of people who have worked on the article and (judging from the talk page), they don't think it is anywhere near completion, or indeed even neutral.
• The article needs a copy-edit. I myself copy edited (only) the lead for readability and clarity and didn't even get to the rest of the article. Here are the two versions of the lead before and after my copy edit: before and after (and I just noticed I missed a "the").
• The the rest of the article likely still has grammatical mistakes. It is far too "listy." It has too much focus on post-partition events (favoring the Indian version) and far too little on the partition itself.
• Finally, although any editor can nominate an article for FAC, I am concerned that an article that has been the battleground for many POV-wars, has been nominated by a new editor Maclean1 (talk • contribs), who not only has no history of working on the page, but also joined Wikipedia only on 12 February, 2007, and thereafter made no edits until 12 March 2007, when this article was nominated. Doesn't add up. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not read the talk page, but are you inferring that user Maclean1 was involved in a POV war? You are not assuming good faith, which is one of the main pillars of Wikipedia. I suggest you strike out your last comment, and keep your responses constructive, like you did before your last statement. While I appreciate all the FAC rewievers constructive comments as I see they have put their time and effort in that, but the rewievers should not let their personal feelings get in the way, and be Objective. --Paracit 05:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't infer anywhere that Maclean1 was involved in POV-wars, just that s/he might not be aware of the complicated history of the article. Your point though is well-taken. My apologies to Maclean1. I withdraw my last set of remarks. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Oppose:

1. POV
2. Poor content. Doesn't delve too much into the reasons of partition and why it eventually led to the two nations splitting up.
3. Uncited claims
4. Poor maps, better ones can be easily sourced.
5. Presence of lists
6. =Division of assets= too small
7. =Aftermath= goes too far into the future. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Speedy Close I assume good faith towards the nominator but it is obvious he/she doesn't have a comprehensive understanding of the general process to make an article FA. No peer reivew was performed and nobody has done any major work on it. As a guide, please see Wikipedia:Article_development. Thanks Gizza^{Chat ©} 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, how does your Speedy Close can not be construed WP:BITE. You have mentioned no constructive comments at all! --Paracit 05:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Strong oppose: Per Nichalp. Also, the article is unreferenced, too "listy", and not comprehensive. Not to mention the POV. --Ragib 19:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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.