Wikipedia:Featured article review/India/archive2

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 kept by Nikkimaria 14:15, 28 July 2011 [1].

India

Review commentary

Notified:

WikiProject India, WikiProject History

PS I should add, though, that just because I have copy edited the other sections, doesn't mean that they don't have significant issues, especially ones of sourcing, balance and meaning. In my view, very few sections meet current FA standards. With many editors, both registered and IPs, champing at the bit to leave their footprints on this highly-trafficked page, maintenance, it seems, would be major task once the page has been improved. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally support User:Fowler&fowler for this article to be nominated for featured article for review.User:yohannvt

Why? Could you point out the ways in which you feel this article does not meet the

FA criteria? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

It's a total mess from the beginnings to history section. Lots of inaccuracies, weight issues all over the place.. for instance the history section is nearly totally based on foreign intruders as India itself would have none. Think of America and they only would write about Columbus and the colonialists and how they were destroyed or conquered. A total injustice to Americas history. In India we had several impacts, but none of them changed the foundation of our world. We are still the Indians despite all these "great invasions". People should read more about our history, when they come to this page. And since India is a pluralistic country, where all regions take pride in their leaders, not only the Hindi speaking belt, they should be mentioned accordingly here with some details of their achievements for India as a whole. I would like to see details of the Mauryas and Guptas of the North, the Shatavahanas, Marathas and Rashtrakutas from the Deccan, the Cholas and Vijayanagara from the South and the Palas and Kalingas from the East. There are many more great Indian history makers, but these are essential in our history besides the independence movement. The lead section should be a good introduction to this article, but it is merely describing some points about India, which I find unsatisfactory. It should have been more an epical style as India is epic in all forms. There should be a brief summary of the setup of the union, and a comparison to other supernational entities like EU and Soviet Union. Give a hint why India became to be known to the western world since ancient times and how India remained an ancient civilization to this day. I don't consider this article to be even remotely excellent. Please review this with the right spirit of India and Indians.--David Fraudly (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, don't know what to do with this FAR. A number of editors are wasting time, theirs and everyone else's, on the Talk:India page arguing endlessly about the sweet intangibles that Wikipedians like to argue about. I can't get them to spend any time on the FAR. As for David Fraudly (talk · contribs)'s post, Welcome aboard, this being your second edit on Wikipedia. Could you suggest something concrete to change and how? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Imperial revisionism is the new black, although its zealots would not care for the cliche. any Indian editor who has had the courage to say anything positive or good about India is immediately accused as one of a Hindu or Indian nationalist. While i will be the first to admit that the wp attracts a lot of such editors, their unreferenced rants and ravings stand no chance and are often drowned out by another groups of editors, the likes of
  Andrew Roberts, Niall Ferguson and Lawrence James and retro-historians mentioned in the article. anyone who has had a chance to read this book by Lawrence James Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India will see what Yasmin Alibhai-Brown
  means.

• my rants aside, i was the one who tagged the article for neutrality issues. the reason being, that the history part of the lead does not adequately summarise Indian history and gives
  WP:Undue significance to british period by linking to two aspects of british rule in india (the company and the raj) while omitting a significant amount of Indian history as can be seen in this article History of India. --CarTick (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • (First bullet): Something actionable please. None of the "retro-historians" are cited on the India page.
  • (Second bullet). The History of India page, which is about the History of the Indian subcontinent (ie. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) until 1947, does have a significant Colonial era section. Please also see the template on the right there; Modern India there is Company Rule and the British Indian Empire (or the Raj). Besides, the final version of the lead that we (I, AshLin, RegentsPark, Munci, and Chipmunkdavis) offered you hardly gave undue significance to the British period, given that the History of India's own lead gives a great deal more significance to the British period. I am happy to switch the current history paragraph in the lead for the one we last offered you in the link above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Zuggernaut, Yogesh Khandke, Pdheeru supported my version that does not include the link to company rule. RegentsPark expressed support first only to withdraw later. I wasnt aware Munci supported your version, would like to see it.
    • no mention of
      Brihadeeswarar Temple and went on military expeditions outside the subcontinent or Ashoka, the man who ruled the entire Indian subcontinent whose Ashoka Chakra was adopted as the national emblem of India thus carrying enormous cultural significance. i am not saying we should mention all these guys. now, is there any reason why you would want to split the british rule into company and raj other than to provide links to both your pet articles from the lead of one of the highly visible wp articles (almost 30,000 views every day). why cant we let the readers go to the British Raj article and find their way around from there? isnt it like linking Ashoka in addition to Maurya Empire? why the redundancy? --CarTick (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • In recent decades, human encroachment has posed a threat to India's wildlife; in response, the system of national parks and protected areas, first established in 1935, was substantially expanded in Biodiversity is unreferenced. guess the 1935 refers to Jim Corbett National Park and it would be nice if we can find a reference that supports the exact sentence. --CarTick (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • (First bullet) Zuggernaut is now topic banned from India-history related topics. His vote, on the history paragraph in the lead, therefore, doesn't count. Munci expressed support for my version in this edit of 12 March 2011. Your version has three support votes including yours; mine has five, including mine. That is enough to show that there is no consensus of the changing the sentence about the British rule and Indian independence movement.
      • (Second bullet) It appears that you are now chanding your own objections to the lead. In the alternative lead proposed by you on 10 March 2011 none of these were mentioned. In fact, the only difference between by lead (mentioned and linked above) and yours was in the last sentence, where you had an abbreviated mention of the British. Again, the history section of the India page is essentially the lead of the History of India page, and the history paragraph of the lead of the India page, is a bare bones précis of its History Section (approximately one sentence for each paragraph). The lead of the History of India page has one paragraph devoted to the British years in which both the Company rule and British raj are mentioned. It is therefore entirely apt that we devote half a sentence: "Gradually annexed by the East India Company from the mid 18th century and colonized by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century, India ..."
      • Thanks for discovering the missing cite. I will fix it shortly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • PS to (Second bullet). In rereading the old history section, I feel you have a point. Not necessarily that the history section is slanted towards the British, but that it is slanted geographically in favor of North India. (In part this reflects the old historiography.) I will attempt a rewrite of the history section to correct this, and you can let me know what you think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• In first line, it says India is a state in South Asia, it needs to be changed to country rather than state! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.35.169 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been done. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include prose, undue weight, lack of summary style and general non-compliance with the MOS. Dana boomer (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delist Sadly there are still dead links and ongoing neutrality disputes. I didn't bother to look more closely. Brad (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I could nitpick on this article but I'm not going to. It has seen substantial improvement from F&F. Brad (talk) 08:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be more specific as requested the article does not meet:
    • 1c based on dead links making verification impossible.
      • All external links are working as of now. There are many links that are missing retrieved on dates. Please fix those. Brad (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1d based on the neutrality tags present.
  • If these issues are fixed then I'll be glad to rescind my delist. Brad (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Dead links fixed. --rgpk (comment) 17:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • F&F asked me to revisit the article. Substantial improvement has been completed but 2c is now a serious problem. A mixture of date formatting and missing information throughout references. I found one marked dead link that isn't dead; worked fine for me. Brad (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brad, Could you please explain a little more. I'm not sure I understand your concern. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make it clear, by 2c Brad refers to the inconsistency in citations, for instance article has all possible date formats like big endian (2007-06-21), middle endian (April 23, 2011) and little endian (31 October 2007); for this article I would prefer little endian (Commonwealth format). Also many of the references lack complete information like work, publisher, format, typefaces, etc. — Bill william compton^Talk 06:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, Bill. I will redo all the references in the Citation template format with little endian dates. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Brad and Bill, I have now redone the cites in the citation+endian format as well as Harvnb for books that were cited many times. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great work there! just check Ref118, which is a dead link. — Bill william compton^Talk 02:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per
  WP:FAIL#Wikipedia became battleground playpen. Honestly, I don't see myself the POV issues with this article, but I concede that unlike science-type controversial topics, in nationalistic ones WP:2LAW can be eternally invoked to tag the article with {{POV}}—and this is what has been going on on this article's talk page for quite some time now, and on multiple issues. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Would those asking for a delist perhaps give specific examples of what exactly is UNDUE and what DUE information is perhaps missed etc. So far the only real substance here was given by David Fraudly, and I'm not very convinced of their opinion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We must be looking at different articles. Editors on the talk page can't even agree how the country is called (in English) and what the first line of the article should say. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that's not currently an issue with the article. All articles about ethnicities countries or regions are going to suffer this at some point or another. India with its multitudes of english speakers will have a lot of interested editors. Where in the current article is there an UNDUE problem, if not for this FAR then for improvement later? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, but I see quite unreasonable positions there from a lot of the participants, and not just the presumed (Indian/Hindu) nationalists. That's why I linked to FAIL above. The discussion is dominated by people with extreme ideas on both sides and that's the just the way this wiki works. Unless you can somehow produce a topic ban for half a dozen people, I don't see how the POV dispute will end anytime soon. And I checked talk archives 31 and 32 as well, which are fairly recent. Different topics, same problem. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to see specific comments from those asking to delist the article. I'm no expert on the FAR process, but I can't see how the process can work without specific directions on what needs improvement (preferably from editors with confidence inspiring monikers). Also, re Tijfo098, I fail to see how talk page battles translate into quality judgements on the article itself.--rgpk (comment) 10:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's even worth commenting on the (current version of the) content... The lead has two links that violate the

You're going to have to explain the principle of least surprise thing further. Annexed links to Company rule in India because the process of annexation was carried out by the British East India Company. Colonized links to British Raj because it became a direct colony of Britain only after the end of company rule. Were you expecting something different? (Also, while the principle you quote applies quite nicely to the design of user interfaces, I'm not sure how useful it is for encyclopedias or for scholarly work in general. Surprises are not always a bad thing.) I'll take a look at the linking issue, thanks for that. --rgpk (comment) 16:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a fairly simple matter to reduce the number of links in the lead but is that an FA criterion? Links tend to be useful connects to detailed articles (this is a summary-style article) and don't detract from the readability of the lead. But, if that's an FA criterion, please let me know. I removed the trivial memberships from the lead. --rgpk (comment) 17:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at

WP:LEAD and the links appear to satisfy the requirements set out there: Use as few links as possible before and in the bolded title. Thereafter, words used in a title may be linked to, particularly if they are links to a more general article, as this puts the article into context. --rgpk (comment) 18:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Perhaps the lead could spare the reader trivialities such as India being member of the UN. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done trivial memberships removed. --rgpk (comment) 17:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how India's membership of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Commonwealth among others is trivial. Its membership of the UN certainly is, because these days it's something exceptional for a country not to be part of the UN. And the same goes for WTO. Munci (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are debatable issues. I'm not sure if the non-aligned movement matters anymore (not aligned with what?) and the commonwealth is a club with no political weight.--rgpk (comment) 14:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator (Fowler&fowler)'s comment: Hmm. Now it is my turn to be surprised! As the nominator of this FAR, a process that we are told lasts some three or four months, and as an editor who has taken part in other FARs, I am a little surprised that we have reached FARC already. Usually, there is much discussion in the review, where the nominator and others are given ample opportunity to improve the article. This time, however, I didn't hear a peep, either from the editors of the India page, who it seems prefer to hold forth on the Talk:India page, or from the FAR regulars. From the first group this was especially surprising, since only a month ago they were coming at me with a vehemence unheard of in the annals of Wikihistory. It may be that this page will eventually need to be delisted, given all the POV issues that are coming up on the talk page—where a newbie editor such as Thisthat2011 (talk · contribs), who may or may not be a sockpuppet, but who cannot write intelligible English, is endlessly holding up any progress, and normally productive Wikipedians are spending all their time kowtowing to inarticulate amateurism—but I feel the regular editors of the page should be given half a chance to improve it. Tijfo098, some of your comments (e.g. about the lead) should have been made in the review process, not in the FARC. I think we should revert back to the review process and then begin anew. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS Putting my money were my mouth is, I've created a talk page and added critique of the first paragraph (or two) of the culture section there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PPS Maybe more "delists" will finally get this page the attention it deserves!! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fowler for taking the trouble to list specific deficiencies. At least we'll have something to work with. This FA process, where anyone can make general statements about articles and these then become "identified deficiencies", seems odd to me. At least you're providing some structure. --rgpk (comment) 18:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why there is surprise that this is at FARC. The article was in the FAR section for almost three weeks, and there seemed to be little discussion and fewer improvements to the article. Because of this - the identified deficiencies and the lack of progress - it was moved to the FARC section. If there is ongoing article improvement, then the article can remain at this stage for as long as necessary, although it is preferred that work is completed in a timely fashion. However, if there is little or no improvement to the article and multiple editors agree that the article does not meet the FA standards, then it will be delisted. I appreciate the extensive (although partial) review you've posted on the talk page of this FAR, although if additional time goes by with no improvement to the article and editors continue to view the article as deficient, the article will have to be delisted, regardless of the extensive discussion either here or on the talk page. I hope this explanation helps; please let me know if you have further questions. Dana boomer (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Not all of us are familiar with the FAR process and I assumed that its purpose was primarily to help editors improve the article by pointing to specific areas where it is deficient wrt featured article criteria. However, it appears that the process is focused more on 'demotion' (if that's the word) and that editors are themselves responsible for figuring all this out. Since I have little idea of what the criteria are, and not much time at hand to identify specific shortcomings vis-a-vis these criteria (though I would be happy to address meaningful suggestions both inside and outside the FAR process), I suggest the article be delisted. Personally, I would ask for more specific reasons for delisting, "ongoing neutrality disputes" is way too general, and would ignore commentary from new editors with hard to assume good faith names, but I'm sure that the regular FAR editors know best. --rgpk (comment) 15:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, (Dana Boomer) what I meant was that the people who have now voted in the FARC didn't offer any critiques! I can't do both (offer critiques and improve the article). Actually, on second thoughts, I can. I can very quickly fix the article, but the POV-warriors on the Talk:India page will turn out by the droves and make sure that I backtrack two sentences for every one that I write. As someone who has sort of overseen the article for upwards of four years and written a few sections (the good ones, I believe) such as Geography and Biodiversity), I would be sad to see the article delisted. However, I am also sick and tired of being accused of being an apologist for the British etc etc, all by people who won't lift a finger to improve the page, so, a part of me would be relieved as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

F&F, thanks for the clarification. When you said you were surprised that it had moved to FARC so quickly, I thought you were requesting a response from one of the delegates! RegentsPark, it is wonderful when an article is improved through the FAR process, but editors must come forward who are interested in improving the article. The criteria can be found at

this page. I don't know what you mean by editors with "hard to assume good faith names", but I would suggest that if you want to bring the article back into line wit the FA criteria, you carefully read the comments of all editors and act on any good suggestions, regardless of the user's name. Dana boomer (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The problem is that most editors (f&f excepting) haven't really given any actionable suggestions or identified specific deficiencies. I suggest that these editors take a look at

Wikipedia:FAR#Katyn_massacre as an example of how to give suggestions in a FAR. I also suggest that these editors, and I assume they are familiar with FA criteria, be specific, with examples, about which particular criterion they believe the article is failing. My 'hard to assume good faith names' comment referred to User:David Fraudly (as in fraud: a person or thing intended to deceive others), the only person to comment before this was moved to FARC. --rgpk (comment) 12:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Brad mentioned the dead links, of which there are still 11, which is an actionable complaint. The neutrality comments are also valid, in that there are neutrality cleanup banners on the top of the page and in one of the sections, which is completely unacceptable for a featured article. If there is dispute on the talk page - fine. However, when it begins to affect the article, in terms of major cleanup banners on featured articles, then it affects the FA criteria and becomes actionable. As for Mr. Fraudly, I am going to AGF and say there's a good possibility that it is his true name or pen name, rather than an attempt to point out that he is a fraudster. Dana boomer (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. These are actionable comments. Thank you. I was a little disappointed at the lack of structure in this process but f&f has begun to provide that structure. (Don't worry. I too AGF on Mr. Fraudly. My only point was that an "identified deficiencies" statement on a single 3-edits editor, with an unlikely name, and a tendency toward statements like It should have been more an epical style as India is epic in all forms, is not a good idea. I have no idea how to remedy a deficiency of the un-epical sort!) --rgpk (comment) 14:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dana, I'm sorry if I sounded so negative, but after my experience with MHP, where I wrote a very detailed review but 90% of which (so far) has been ignored by the article regulars who continue to squabble over their pet peeves, I felt like investing a similar effort in reviewing another article where most likely there won't be consensus on the key issues on the talk page to be a waste of my time. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some aspects of the history of India are sufficiently controversial that this recent lawsuit happened, so I'm not optimistic at all that the Wikipedia editors involved can come to an agreement. It's almost like trying to keep Israel FA—that didn't seem to have worked. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few brief comments:

• The infobox about the Bahá'í House of Worship being so important is sourced from a possibly less than neutral Bahá'í book.

  Couldn't find the infobox. Has it been removed or did I miss it?--rgpk (comment) 20:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is repetition of "in the world" in the brief paragraph on Bollywood.

   Done --rgpk (comment) 20:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a broken reference "Error: no |title= specified when using {{".

   Done Seems to have been fixed along the way. --rgpk (comment) 20:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There are also some bare URLs in the reference list. Other web citations have only the page title and retrieval date, but no author or publisher.
• Some harv refs are broken (don't link to anything), e.g. the two Achaya ones, possibly more.
• The article uses an extremely questionable convention of not giving the page number for some harv footnotes, but giving a "p." for the full ref linked to. Is that "p." the number of pages of the book, or the actual page referenced? Also, this convention is not uniformly used.

-- More later. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • I can answer the last point. The actual syntax (which is standard in journal reviews of books, for example) is Pp. xvi, 347. That means there are 16 preface (front matter) pages and a total of 347 actual pages (including the index). Unfortunately, someone, who thought the Pp. referred to a page number being cited changed Pp. to p. So, now it is really confusing. I'm happy to remove the total page number information altogether. The page number being cited, however, should appear in the first half of the references section in the form {{Harvnb|Smith|2002|p=32}} or {{Harvnb|Gandhi|1932|pp=23–24}} (wikified, of course). (See, for examples, cites 47 through 55.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS I'm happy to fix the inconsistencies as well. Will let you know here when done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • PPS Yeah, the refs are a mess. I will fix them, but it will take me a little longer than I had thought! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've removed the total page information as well as commercial urls from all books in the references section. I'm rewriting the history section. It is more than half done. All new notes have harvnb-style author, year, and page information. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think

the consensus is that GB page links are useful when they help very the material. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, thanks for the feedback. I'm happy to add the Google URLs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Have added the URLs to all those history books that have Google previews available. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tijfo098: You are correct about the language in the lead: it is imprecise. I have now changed the sentence fragment, "Gradually

colonised by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century ..." to "Gradually controlled by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and directly administered by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century, ..." There is less surprise, and also it is more accurate, since the East India Company did not annex all of India (it annexed some regions and formed subsidiary alliances in other regions) and in 1858 the United Kingdom began to directly administer India. "Colonised" is incorrect, because the East India Company had colonised parts of India too, especially after 1820, which most historians consider the beginning of India's colonial period. I hope this is satisfactory. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delist The article is not comprehensive enough and does not present the issue in an adequate way. Sections such as Religion, Transport/Infrastructure, Education, Science and Technology are missing. The History section is too long and needs a split. Italiano111 (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can any person walk off the street without taking part in the review discussion and without providing anything meaningfully actionable and pronounce, "Delist" or "Keep?" Do the FAR delegates disregard these perfunctory votes? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone may make a declaration; however, delist !votes that provide no actionable commentary or do not reference the
      FA criteria will commonly be disregarded. That being said, while I haven't checked to see whether Italiano's comment is a valid criticism of this article (and I don't intend to comment on it at this point), "comprehensiveness" is part of the FA criteria, so responding to him (as you have done) is appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Thanks, Nikkimaria. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Response to Italiano111: What issue? Yes, the history section is long because it is in the process of being rewritten and will be reduced again. Seriously, how difficult is it to split a section? What would make the page comprehensive? And which country FA is comprehensive by this benchmark? The article has all
    WP:Countries page. Australia doesn't have Science and Technology or Infrastructure. Germany's history section is way too long and its geography and biodiversity sections way too short. Canada doesn't have a biodiversity section. Should we be demoting all country FAs while we are at it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Have split History into three subsections (for now). Will update at the end of the rewrite. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I´m flexible enough to change the current delist recommendation once the article has gained a comprehensive outlook. Being comprehensive is the second most important criteria (1. b)) Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Italiano111 (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The current history section dedicates half of its prose to ancient history, and about an eighth to events since the founding of the republic. Thoughts on this? I think the ancient history probably needs to be massively cut down, and an expansion on modern india. I think that as a start the sentence "India has faced challenges from religious violence, casteism, naxalism, terrorism" should be expanded with a short explanation of each of these points, rather than a list. Some, such as terrorism, already have information in that paragraph. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chipmunk, I'm rewriting the history section and have got only as far as 700 CE. That was done in response to various posts in the FAR, in particular those of CarTick and Italiano111. See, for example, the last post in the review section above. Since I'm also travelling and have had to reread some hefty tomes, it is taking a little longer, but I should be done in about a week's time. Please hold on. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment About two weeks have passed but the history section still has some unsourced material. When will the construction end? TGilmour (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Can we get an update on this? There are still multiple outstanding delists... If the editors working on the article feel that the comments of the various reviewing editors have been addressed, please feel free to ask them to return and update their comments. Dana boomer (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dana, I will be returning home on Tuesday July 5. Will address the unaddressed issues soon thereafter. Thanks for being patient with this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

F&F, can we get an update on this, please? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Yes, I am back and have been working on expanding the history section (the last remaining section that needs work). I am almost finished with it; I need to add two paragraphs for the British period. A couple of days more. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The expansion of the history section in response to FAR comments is now complete. It is sourced with a dozen of the most modern textbooks being used around the world, all peer-reviewed for balance and

WP:DUE. I feel that the India article, which became an FA in 2004, is now up to date, and in line with current FA standards. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

PS Thanks, everyone, for your patience. Superhuman patience. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your work on this! Perhaps you'd have a few minutes to ping the editors who commented above and ask them to revisit their comments, now that you have had a chance to address them? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've already pinged everyone who has weighed in here, except User:David Fraudly, who turned out to be a sockpuppet of a banned editor. I am now working on redoing all the references in the Citation template format and little endian dates, in response to Brad01 and Bill william compton's concerns. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've finished the Citation work and I note that Brad has changed his "delist" to "keep." What about the others? Any comments? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No idea whether it's matter or not, but as I mentioned above, Ref118 is still a dead link. F&f, would you please correct it? — Bill william compton^Talk 21:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Have fixed 118, which very mysteriously has become 119 now! Anyway, I have checked (and improved) all the links from 117 to 120! Thanks for pointing out the error. Having the link is very important. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I pointed it out first (above, which I changed later to match with the article) it was 119, but yesterday evening it became 118, and I know the reason, it's due to the tiger image of Template:Indian image rotation, which has citations in its caption. As far as I can see, all the references have been checked, with proper citations and format, so I would elatedly Vote! for Keep, and for this all credit goes to indefatigable F&f. — Bill william compton^Talk 04:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you BWC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Of the other people who have weighed in here, David Fraudly (as mentioned above) has been indeffed, as has TGilmour; Tijo098 hasn't edited since 22 May, CarTick is on Wikileave; Munci has been editing intermittently, but I'll leave another post on his talk page; and Italiano111 hasn't edited since 28 June. The only others are Chipmunkdavis and RegentsPark. I'll ping them again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It appears that the issues have been largely addressed (thank you fowler&fowler). BTW, fowler, I corrected Bill Fraudly to David Fraudly in your post immediately above this one, hope that is ok. --rgpk (comment) 11:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, RegentsPark, both for weighing in and for correcting BF->DF. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Fowler&Fowler has done a remarkable job with copyediting and sourcing etc. My only qualm is that during this process the article has become much larger, a total of over 150,000 bytes. The prose tool isn't working for me for some reason on this article, but I'm willing to bet it's quite large in itself. I defer however, to F&F's judgement about what is
  WP:DUE in the article. It doesn't fail any requirements. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It is true, Chipmunk, that the article is bigger. The history section has been expanded in response to comments by two weighers-in. The old history section was a haiku-like list of subpage links, which not only made for poor prose, but was also being perennially raided by people who were miffed that their hero was missing. The new history section is a high level description (that for the most part eschews naming names) which is based on a dozen of the most modern textbooks that are currently in use around the world, books that have been peer-reviewed and vetted for DUE. Most statements in the history section have been sourced to multiple sources, and when they haven't, it is only because I didn't have time then, but will gradually add the others. In other words, they represent consensus or near-consensus among historians. That's pretty much all we can reasonably do. Thanks for weighing in. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• F&F and friends have done pure work restoring this to FA class. Thank you. Commenting out of ... irritation ... with some of the "comprehensiveness" casuistry above. Suggestions like "ancient history probably needs to be massively cut down" almost strike me as vile. But whatever. At this point, it's neither here nor there. Saravask 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Saravask. Glad to see you back. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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