Wikipedia:Featured article review/Angkor Wat/archive1

Add links
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 kept 16:37, 28 April 2008.

Angkor Wat[edit]

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, User:Henry Flower, User:Merbabu

I am nominating this article for review as I feel it no longer meets the FA criteria. Most concerning is its failure of 1c and 2c with whole paragraphs being appearing to be completely unsourced and confusing mix of referencing styles used. I also feel it fails criteria 3 with an excessive amount of images that flow all the way down the external link sections. Most are unnecessary and do not illustrate the sections they are in and appear to have been added for decoration. It also fails criteria 2a and WP:LEAD in that it does not adequately summarize the entire article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • AnmaFinotera, You practically ruined Jeopardy! in many ways, and I don't want you defeaturing this. I'll start today with the images and move on to the refs soon. I'm not an author, so someone else can work on the lead. Reywas92Talk 12:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was such a comment really necessary? How about a little civility. AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but the edits I've seen of you, especially on Jeopardy, are removing valid references, removing interesting info that is supposedly too crufty, and then tagging it with things you did. Rather than hurting the project by having one less FA, I'm going to attempt to actually make the article better. Reywas92Talk 13:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have never, ever removed a valid reference that complies with WP:RS and I resent the implication that I have. This article has nothing to do with Jeopardy, and your comments were completely inappropriate, unnecessary, and down right rude and insulting. AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this, but your complaints are just bizarre. I can't find any significant unsourced statements, and the referencing system is Harvard in footnotes, with bibliographic details in the References section. The lead summarises the history, structure and decoration, which are the main sections of the article. Yes, people periodically add their favourite holiday snaps, and we periodically clear them out (as Reywas92 has just done). If there are any specific issues you would like addressed, the article does have a talk page. HenryFlower 08:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I don't see any major problems here.
    • The source provided says there are 91 asuras in the scene of the Churning of the Milk, but the article says 92. Please provide a source for the 92.
    • The external links should be updated, for example the link to GACP didn't work. Maybe it's moved here: http://www.gacp-angkor.de/? Is GACP still working at Angkor? If not, the article should be updated. DrKiernan (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The asuras are indeed a puzzle. Glaize has 92 ([1]; I don't have the paper edition handy). The CACP was certainly working at Angkor as of 2007 (http://www.autoriteapsara.org/en/apsara/monuments/international%20news.html). HenryFlower 08:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the extra citation. Is it necessary to move this to FARC? I wouldn't have thought so myself. DrKiernan (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. While I agree that removing FA status would be like cutting off one's head to remove a pimple, I do suggest more discipline is shown on how the images are presented - WP:MOS#IMAGES is a good start. (but thanks to those have been vigilant with the happy snaps). --Merbabu (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are some references at the bottom that could use more info. That done, I'll close this as I agree referencing is met. Marskell (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, is Tales of Asia a reliable source? Marskell (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the author says he has a BA in "something or other"[2], I think the interview is usable. The stats are credited: "Paging through the June 18 - July 1 issue of The Phnom Post, I came across a story credited to Cheang Sokha"; "as quoted by the optimist of all optimists, MoT Secretary of State Thong Khon", but they can also be seen at these official sites, which perhaps should be used instead: [3][4][5][6]. DrKiernan (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. The issue with unreferenced statements have not been addressed. An FA should not have unreferenced statements, period. There are whole paragraphs unreferenced, and some others are still questionable. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The level of referencing is comparable to other FAs. I'd like to get the ref formatting done but I'm horribly slow at it. I'll chip away. We have some deadlinks. Marskell (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This link is repeatedly attributed to Eleanor Mannikka—problem is, the page doesn't refer to her nor does the mainpage of the website. It's attributed John C. Huntington and/or Susan L. Huntington, and hosted by Ohio State. Anyone know what's up? Marskell (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Huntingtons manage the overall site, but the sub-pages are Mannikka's.
Go to: http://huntingtonarchive.osu.edu/seasia/camb.html
Scroll down to the "Angkor Wat" link and click on "text by Eleanor Mannikka". DrKiernan (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Angkor_Wat/archive1&oldid=1038624916"