Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bangladesh/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 by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:18, 27 September 2010 [1].

Bangladesh

Review commentary

Featured article candidates/Bangladesh

Featured article review/Bangladesh/archive1

Notified:
Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Bangladesh-related topics
.

FA from 2006, with

WP:RS failure, one example includes Banglapedia as a source. 25 or so images used in the article, could use an image review. Also could do with a bit of general copyediting throughout. -- Cirt (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I am going to do an image review and remove unnecessary images right now. --

talk) 05:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I have removed redundant and extra images from most of the sections, reducing the number of images (including maps) down to 13. Hope this takes care of Cirt's concern about images. Cirt is definitely correct about the previous status ... 25 images is too much for an article. Hope the current number (which includes maps) is ok. --
talk) 05:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I have merged couple of one-line-paragraphs with appropriate larger paragraphs downing the number of such issues just one. I'll try to expand the remaining later. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 12:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: regarding the issue:

http://www.pmo.gov.bd/constitution/index.htm - this link appears to be broken. Y fixed.
http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/T_0210.htm - dead link. Y fixed.
http://pulitzercenter.org/openitem.cfm?id=1973 - also a dead link. Y fixed.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j_Yffs19ictRZn6y6NZTIPMAGCBQD95D7B804 - broken link. Y fixed.
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4462&l=1 - also a broken link. Y fixed.
http://www.idsa.in/publications/stratcomments/SmrutiPattanaik170707.htm - also a dead link on cite ref 37. Y fixed.
http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/countries.cfm?c=BGD - dead link on cite ref 76. Y fixed.
http://www.parliamentofbangladesh.org/indexeng.html - this external link is dead. Y fixed.
http://www.bttb.gov.bd/ - also a dead external link as well. Y fixed. JJ98 (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed three there. The rest can be fixed I presume. Need help. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have copy-edited the Demographics section and corrected a number of links. I don't see the problem with citing Banglapedia, a highly academic work. Dejo (talk)
Comment: Banglapedia is a tertiary source, and as such should be avoided, in favor instead of secondary sources, especially on an article purporting to be of Featured Article level quality. There has also been a bit of controversy with regards to Banglapedia. We should expect a higher level for FAs than this. -- Cirt (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I will try to replace the Banglapedia refs with references to original sources of info. --

talk) 17:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Just my two cents: let's not be too hasty about converting those references, unless there is really a superior alternative. Yes, an encyclopedia is generally considered a tertiary source. But tertiary sources are appropriate for summary information as opposed to detail. Plus many of the articles in Banglapedia represent original research and thus arguably qualify as secondary. Furthermore I defy you to name a source that is absolutely free from controversy of one kind or another. The decorated nytimes is not without stain, for example. The complaints against Banglapedia linked above have major sourcing problems of their own -- being both tertiary and opinion. Banglapedia, with 5000 pages, is an unparalleled source of info written mostly by serious scholars. It is not the last word, especially on sensitive issues like the independence war, but I believe it has a place as a reference here. The article gained featured status in the first place with these very references in place, so I would urge people to focus on the other more pressing issues. Currently only 6 out of 84 references are from Banglapedia and none of them are sensitive issues at all (eg, jute, dance, film). Dejo (talk)

I have organized the Sports section and removed some out of scope detail. Dejo (talk)

Comment - Still seeing unsourced chunks, poorly referenced paragraphs, etc, as well as short-paragraphs and one-sentence-long-paragraphs, throughout. -- Cirt (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a copyedit tonight to address these issues. Others are also welcome to look for these problems. --

talk) 17:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I think I have fixed the issue of single sentence paragraphs and short paragraphs, by merging them according to logical cohesion. --

talk) 18:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment – Just a heads up for editors who plan on working on this article, here are examples of recent country FARs that have gone through here relatively recently that may give an idea of what to expect of the FAR process: Canada FAR, Australia FAR, Israel FAR. Lambanog (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that more information should be included in this article. After the fall of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1975 a senior Awami League leader Khondekar Mustaq Ahmed became President of Republic and promulgated martial law all over Bangladesh. He formed a cabinet with right wing awami leaders and kept the parliament alive. He sought the support of the members of the parliament but they refused to cooperate Kh Mustaq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divine Poet (talk • contribs)

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern include sourcing, prose and images YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Delist. Agree with FA criteria concerns identified by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs), including sourcing, prose, images, and other concerns specified, above. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Cirt. Above those concerns and issues are not addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 03:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cirt for your concern. It would be greatly helpful if you or someone else could be a little more specific. If I am not wrong, all the specific concerns have been addressed so far. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my observations of FAR, thinking of it as a process where specific concerns are stated to be addressed individually point-by-point is not the best way to look at it. That's a road to frustration. In most cases what the reviewers here are looking for, although they seem to be reluctant to say so outright, is a major overhaul. Maybe you can ask the delist voters on a scale from 1 to 100 how far from a support they are to get a better idea of how much more work they think is needed and compare that to how much effort you are willing to exert to attempt to keep the article as a FA. Lambanog (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. All concerns have been addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 04:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sourcing concerns still remain, for an article purportedly of FA quality. Banglapedia remains cited in the article, at least 5 times. Would be a good idea for a previously-uninvolved-image-editor to come by and do an image review check. -- Cirt (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okies. All Banglapedia cites have been replaced with other book cites. Independent image editors have been requested to take a look at the article. Anything else? I am too close to the subject to make judgments, but I am close enough to follow instructions. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.