Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manu Sharma/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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Moni3 20:59, 2 October 2008 [1].

---

Manu Sharma

Nominator(s): =Nichalp «Talk»=

With current talk on short FAs (Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Very short FAs), I'm testing my luck. The article is as long as reliable and verifiable references permit me. I have gone through over 500 press reports, but nothing much on the person can be gleaned other than what's listed in the article that I had saved from an AFD. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The prose is not up to scratch. See my recent edits to the article for some initial indications of the kinds of things that need to be fixed. With short articles such as this one, there's really no excuse for clumsy prose, let alone typos and bad grammar. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Ha! Call this short! Try 4 down from here. This raises a somewhat different issue, about the available information, and what to do if adequate sources don't exist (although they could). I'm reluctant to support any biography based only on press reports by crime reporters for FA. The article doesn't even say what his religious/ethnic background is, surely a rather important point in India of all places, or his education. The bit about hostile witnesses is very confusing - hostile to the prosecution I suppose. Who are SMS?? Who ostracised him? Fails on comprehensiveness and prose. Those wanting a test case on shortness should go below. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why religion should play an issue here. I'll work on the other two issues you raised, it should be a five minute fix. Now back to the issue. Could you point me out to alternate sources? If you consider stories by crime reporters to be biased, could you suggest where I could dig out other alternate sources? =Nichalp «Talk»=

No I can't - I'd never heard of him until 10 minutes ago. This I suppose raises the issue as to whether it is always "actionable" to oppose on lack of comprehensiveness. But the info must in this case be out there somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking you where to find the sources, but rather what 'other' sources you have in mind. The information will be there somewhere including his date of birth and location of birth. But then, the question to be asked is how I can I satisfy WP:RS and WP:V if I do add these details? =Nichalp «Talk»=

• Oppose
• Perhaps this is due to lack of information or lack of finding information, but too many questions arise from the article.
• The article does not say where he was born and raised.
• In an article about a murderer or a victim of injustice, I hope to see a lengthy discussion on how his psychopathic tendencies came to be, or - why he felt murdering someone would solve his problems. If he was a victim of injustice, such as Guildford Four and Maguire Seven, an extended discussion should be in the article about how he was systematically oppressed.
• If he has become a symbol of escaped justice or a cause for marginalized people, how has his experience changed things in India? Or changed him?
• In all, it seems to be a shallow look at an unremarkable case. It appears to be unremarkable because the case for its fame has not been made or does not exist. --Moni3 (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not because of the article's length, but because it is clearly not comprehensive and the prose is not up to scratch, as has been said above. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I have not actually read the article, but the lead looks short. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Refs 1 and 3, maybe others, need author information. Ref 14 needs publisher info. Otherwise sources look good; links check out with the link checker. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Quick-fail—1a. This needs considerable work and is way underprepared for FA status. Please withdraw it and resubmit after two or more weeks' work on it in your own time.
• Opening sentence: "Siddharth Vashisht (born 1977), better known as Manu Sharma, is a convicted murderer, serving life imprisonment for the 1999 murder of model Jessica Lall. Sharma is the son of the former Indian minister Venod Sharma.[1]" Bit repetitive and jumbled ... "Siddharth Vashisht (born 1977), better known as Manu Sharma, is the son of the former Indian minister Venod Sharma. Since ?, he has been serving life imprisonment for the 1999 murder of model Jessica Lall.[1]
• Other timings given at the opening, but not of his conviction.
• The lead is a bit short and thin. Could we be told there that he's from a family of industrialists as well as politicians?
• "Sharma is known to be asthmatic and was given special attention in his childhood.[5]" What kind of "special attention" was this? Medical?
• "He was educated at the elite Mayo College in Ajmer, after which he was asked to leave." "After which" indicates that he finished ... yet he was "asked to leave", which in itself is vague.
• "then"—what about the years instead? Tony (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

PS I've only now noticed that my good friend Nichalp is the nominator ... Sorry, but it doesn't change my assessment. Tony (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. 1a is the issue. I agree the prose is not up to the mark. I was testing to see if short articles can be featured. Since alternate proposals have come up on the talk page, I am withdrawing this nom. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to make the point that this article as it stands probably wouldn't even have got through GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It just passed as GA! I was surprised too when I read it... --Moni3 (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I'm going to take a look at that GA review ... it may not be a GA for long. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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