Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kalidas (film)/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 kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC) [1].

---

Kalidas (film)

Notified: Ssven2

I am nominating this featured article for review because even though it passed FAC, two of the books used extensively in the article (those by G. Dhananjayan) were later revealed to be mirror publications (although the Kalidas chapter in them did not copy from us). Still I chose to play safe by removing the two books, resulting in the article being largely reworked, and now it will need to go through a FAR to check whether it is still FA worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment

I have been through the last version with the tainted sources, and it seems that all the information that was being referenced using the books has either been reworked or has been furnished with newer and more reliable sources. I have been through every word of the Madras Musings source that has been (majorly) used to replace the old sources, and can say with complete assurance that it substantiates every piece of information that it needs to. Will go through the entire article as a whole again, but this is impressive work so far. It's not an easy job to look up sources for an Indian multi-lingual lost film, but Kailash here does remarkably well and I commend him for that. NumerounovedantTalk 20:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Close without FARC -- I've been going though the sourcing since the last one hour. Given the film's period and availability, i find this article remarkable even now. Despite the removal of Dhananjayan's books, the article still is comprehensive and focused. I reiterate that my decision is purely unbiased and is to the best of my knowledge. I add that i don't have any issues with the nominators which could influence me to take this decision. ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 14:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Could you please notify the relevant WikiProjects about this review? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep

Checked a few sources

• Ref6 supports all the facts given.
• Ref14 too suppurts the facts.
• [2] supports Randor Guy's statement and the reception info for the film.

Randomly checking the book sources also bring the same results. Though the article appears short, considering the time of the film and that its lost the info provided is sufficient. The reason for initiating this FAR was the sourcing issue and I'm confident now that it has been sufficiently resolved. --Skr15081997 (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

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