Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi/archive1
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 removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 12:25, 12 July 2009 [1].
Review commentary
[edit]- Notified: User talk:Classicfilms, User talk:Nirvana2013, User talk:Ashwatham, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism/Philosophy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative Views.
FA from 2005, referencing/1c issues throughout. Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Freedom_and_partition_of_India tagged with issues since March 2009. 21 images used in the article, could stand to have an image review. Cirt (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Cirt asked that I participate in this FAR. From the standpoint of topic and theme alone, I would like for the article on Gandhi to remain an FA. However, there do appear to be some serious structural, stylistic, and mechanical problems with the article.
- Re: WP:WIAFA:
- 1a. I cleaned up the language of the introduction a bit. However, the entire article could use a clean up. This is a relatively large task and perhaps would be better accomplished by dividing up the work among editors.
- 1b. The article is comprehensive but it is also uneven. The section "Gandhi's principles," for example, consists entirely of quotes that really do not offer a concise overview of the topic.
- 1c. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a serious problem throughout the article, not just in the tagged section. "Early life and background," "Civil rights movement in South Africa (1893–1914),"Struggle for Indian Independence (1916–1945), and "Swaraj and the Salt Satyagraha (Salt March)" stand out but virtually all of the sections lack proper referencing. From this point only, this problem may force the article to lose its FA status if it is not corrected. As with 1a., it will prove to be a large task and may need multiple editors to correct it. I just added the "sources" tag at the top of the article.
- 1d. I have witnessed edit wars on this article in the past. It seems to be relatively stable now, but some of the sections were constructed more in an attempt to resolve edit wars than to cover the topic at hand (such as "Ideals and criticisms) and thus may have to be reconstructed.
- 1e. See 1d. I haven't watched this article in awhile so I cannot comment about the present.
- 2a. As I stated above, I tweaked the lead a bit although it could probably benefit from the contributions of other editors as well. As an FA, the lead needs to be of the highest quality.
- 2b. I think that it is fine but as with any biography the structure is somewhat subjective and perhaps we need to hear from other editors on this topic.
- 2c. I haven't gone through all of the citations, but as with 1c the references could stand a full review.
- 3. I concur with Cirt on the topic of images.
- 4. See 2b.
- Conclusion: These problems will need to be attended to in order for the article to maintain its FA status.
- -Classicfilms (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it's a lot of work but could you add citation tags wherever you think necessary? It will be a lot easier to search for cites for specific things. Thanks! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well - I'm a bit hesitant only because it would mean adding a fact tag after numerous statements throughout the article and that could irritate a number of readers. My rule of thumb when upgrading articles is to cite any and every point that is offered as a definitive fact. So I can look at this article and see that numerous points in it need to be attributed to some kind of source. So here is a thought. Why don't we take it section by section? Pick a section you would like to work on and if the citation needs are not clear, then post a question here. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I'm restricted to about one library day a week and it is easier for me to take a list of problematic sentences and look up citations than to follow a cite and post cycle. (Those dratted real life issues ....!) I was sort of hoping to get a handle on the extent of the problem. But, no worries, que sera sera, etc. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm facing the same issues. Frankly, I think that this article needs a full team of editors to make all of the corrections. It is far too much for one or two people. Which is why I'm leaning towards removing the FA status and letting it rebuild over a period of time. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I'm restricted to about one library day a week and it is easier for me to take a list of problematic sentences and look up citations than to follow a cite and post cycle. (Those dratted real life issues ....!) I was sort of hoping to get a handle on the extent of the problem. But, no worries, que sera sera, etc. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well - I'm a bit hesitant only because it would mean adding a fact tag after numerous statements throughout the article and that could irritate a number of readers. My rule of thumb when upgrading articles is to cite any and every point that is offered as a definitive fact. So I can look at this article and see that numerous points in it need to be attributed to some kind of source. So here is a thought. Why don't we take it section by section? Pick a section you would like to work on and if the citation needs are not clear, then post a question here. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it's a lot of work but could you add citation tags wherever you think necessary? It will be a lot easier to search for cites for specific things. Thanks! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Just as an example Harvey Milk is a well - maintained FA biography which is heavily sourced. This is what I would like to see in the Gandhi article. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Early life I think I've got this section cited - except for the last sentence in para 1 (which is not a fact anyway). I'll try to work on the South Africa next but am unlikely to get this done on the FAR timetable! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great job! -Classicfilms (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the work is steady then a lot of time is available, but in theory, articles on very prominent leaders, the giants of the world might take an inordinate amount of time given the criteria "characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic" and the hundreds of books on the topic. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why I am wondering if it might not be best to put this article through an actual vote to make a decision about its FA status. As I said above, the subject matter is worthy of an FA, but the article still needs a great deal of work to bring it back to an FA level. I think that with the dedication of a number of editors it can be brought back to this level but until that happens, we need to decide if it should be considered an FA. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the review is supposed to last 2 weeks before the voting phase, and that is tomorrow, so if people think it is unfeasible to have six-month running repairs, it can be delisted YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I would support delisting for now with the understanding that if the page is brought back to FA level, it can go through the FA process again. Perhaps delisting will help bring the page back up to FA status. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll keep working on it but it's going to be slow. Meanwhile FA or not-FA is fine by me. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks RegentsPark. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll keep working on it but it's going to be slow. Meanwhile FA or not-FA is fine by me. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I would support delisting for now with the understanding that if the page is brought back to FA level, it can go through the FA process again. Perhaps delisting will help bring the page back up to FA status. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the review is supposed to last 2 weeks before the voting phase, and that is tomorrow, so if people think it is unfeasible to have six-month running repairs, it can be delisted YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why I am wondering if it might not be best to put this article through an actual vote to make a decision about its FA status. As I said above, the subject matter is worthy of an FA, but the article still needs a great deal of work to bring it back to an FA level. I think that with the dedication of a number of editors it can be brought back to this level but until that happens, we need to decide if it should be considered an FA. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images
- File:Portrait Gandhi.jpg: invalid licence. Copyrights expire 60 years from publication, not 60 years from creation, which means the first publication must be noted. According to the source, it was taken and published on 29 September 2006. This is very clearly wrong.
- File:Gandhi sign.jpg: no source. How do we know this is his signature without a source? File:Nehruwithgandhi1942.jpg: photographed where? Need to know where this document is displayed, so we can check it is by Gandhi.
File:Young Gandhi.jpg: source is a dead link. Date "c.1886 (or is it 1876?)" does not inspire confidence.- File:Gandhi and Kasturbhai 1902.jpg, File:Gandhi South-Africa.jpg: sources are dead links
- File:Gandhi Boer War 1899.jpg: unfortunately, and obviously, this image has been retouched heavily.
File:Gandhi Kheda 1918.jpg: no original source.- File:Salt March.jpg, File:Nehruwithgandhi1942.jpg: no information on first publication.
- File:Mahadev Desai and Gandhi 2 1939.jpg:
source is a dead link; no information on first publication. File:Gandhi's journals.jpg: invalid license. The journals are public domain, but a photograph or collage of them isn't necessarily so. Independent thought is required to select the journals and arrange them artistically.substituted pic. The journals one was of doubtful pd status since it seems to have been taken from a 1950s film.- In the "Legacy" section, I think it's OK to show more than one statue, and statues from different continents, as that clearly shows the profound impact that Gandhi had worldwide. However, they could perhaps be better arranged, for example, by using "upright" parameters. DrKiernan (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I agree with DrKiernan. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A question about the images. Most of the images listed above (and other images with Gandhi as a subject) have been reproduced in multiple locations with no license or copyright status explicitly mentioned. First publication history is almost impossible to come by for almost all Gandhi images. The photographers are uniformly anonymous. Under these circumstances, what is the appropriate thing to do? Delete them? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the issue at hand is improving the article so that it is back to a level appropriate for an FA, I would delete any and all images which are a) not free and b) which have the kind of issues you raise above. An FA article needs images but this one has so many that deleting a few should not make a difference. I would rather see just a few free/fair use images than multiple images which are questionable in terms of fair use. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I think this is going to take a while what with researching the images and with referencing. (See !vote below!) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the issue at hand is improving the article so that it is back to a level appropriate for an FA, I would delete any and all images which are a) not free and b) which have the kind of issues you raise above. An FA article needs images but this one has so many that deleting a few should not make a difference. I would rather see just a few free/fair use images than multiple images which are questionable in terms of fair use. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, lead, prose, depth and breadth of research/coverage on Gandhi's politics, copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, per FA criteria concerns, and above comments. Cirt (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per above with the understanding that if it is rewritten and improves over time, it can go through a new FAC. -Classicfilms (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per the time needed to bring it back to FA status. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. This is nowhere near FA. Lot of work required. KensplanetTC 15:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. per above opposes. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 06:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.