Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nepal/archive1

Nepal[edit]

Article only has inline citations, which seems to be a problem with FA criterion 1(c). --Descendall 05:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I now notice that this page says "prose contains specific citations in source text which may be viewed in edit mode." There is no way that a page that actually requires a reader to look at the page source to see the references should be a FA. --Descendall 06:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at this article, the more I dislike it. Check out the lame attempt at a "peer review" of the article at Wikipedia:Peer review/Nepal/archive1. --Descendall 06:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just a random comment on an interesting and informative article . should one use the word "christened" or "named" for peoples other than Christians? --62.90.39.254

Putting the inline citations in the source text, and listing only the works used as references (along with a note about the invisible ICs) seems perfectly fine to me; it's not standard but it seems like a valid aesthetic choice. Remember that the reason we require ICs is to facilitate checking the reference material, not to make the article look extra fact-y. The "lame peer review" that took place more than two years ago doesn't matter. If you have any objections to the article, let us know. Andrew Levine 15:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was rightfully removed from listing on FAR because these reasons are spurious. Invisible citations are perfectly valid, because if someone wants to check them they can but they don't hurt the readability of the article. And nothing in the criteria says you can't only have inline citations. Please don't list articles at FAR until you understand the criteria better. Ask questions on WT:FAR or the criteria talk page, or just participate and read more at WP:FAC if you want to know more about how the criteria are applied. - Taxman ^Talk 16:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1(c) reads "this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations." --Descendall 17:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I misread this. --Descendall 17:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]