Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna

Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna[edit]

A self-nom. The list is comprehensive; None of the entries in the list is a red link and thus the list and its links serve as a good resource. I believe it adheres to the FLC criteria, hence the nom. --Gurubrahma 10:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - the text needs a copyedit, years should be unwikified, the template on the right needs a margin. Also why was the award not given in '94. Those red links in the template look untidy too. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have copyedited the page and amended the template to list awards as per hierarchy. I am unable to add a margin to the template, please do so. Now, I find on the official GoI website a listing slightly at variance with what obtains in the page; here it is, note that as per this website, the RGKR has been conferred every year. The current list on the page appears to be sourced from webindia123.com. Can I change the list? Regards, ImpuMozhi 01:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And also references need to be cited properly, i.e. not as an external link, but using {{cite web}}. Renata 13:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain, but references are fixed now. Good job! Renata 14:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A minor issue with consistancy of style. In 2002-03, Anjali Bhagwat's full name is given while for Beenamol only surname is used. The template on the right should have more margin per Nichalp. Red link issue also needs to be fixed. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support. I have been bold and updated the reference style. Now I feel that the list is worth being featured if the issue of whether the award was given in 1993-1994 be resolved. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may be possible that the award was given in 1993-94 and that Kunjarani and Leander Paes may have been awarded it in different years. However, I'm not very sure about the veracity of the link provided by ImpuMozhi because it doesn't mention Anjali Ved Pathak in that list. --Gurubrahma 12:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a possible explanation. I do remember that there was a major controversy on the matter. AFAI remember, Beenamol alone was first recommended, which led to protests from Anjali's friends. The committee then revised its decision and nominated both. It is possible that the episode was deemed unseemly and finally only Beenamol was given the award, but we need something definitive. I don't see what we can do apart from use the official website. Any official publicatons at hand? ImpuMozhi 14:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However good the article/list may be written, it cannot be given FL status till its comprehensive and complete. Please resolve the issue fast as otherwise it is unlikely this FLC will succeed. It is a very good list and it would be unfortunate if it fails. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think the most acceptable source to resolve this issue would be the official government list - [1] Rama's Arrow 13:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Full Support I feel the issues have been addressed. Regarding the non-conferral of the award in 93-94, I don't think an explicit reason is available, and since there is information that the award is considered non-mandatory, its acceptable to give that as a reason. Rama's Arrow 13:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a good article but I am not sure if it qualifies to be an FA. Hikingdom 16:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Featured List, right. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the grounds that the list of recipients is not the central part of the article. Eventually, if more information is added, the article should go through FAC. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 10:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with Welsh— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedar-Guardian (talk • contribs)
Oppose. Per Welsh. Also no explanation is given for 1993 non-event. Anwar 15:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RuneWelsh is right. I visited the article in the day this candidacy was submitted and I didn't knew what the article was about. If it is a list of recipients of the award, it should have that name. If it isn't, it should go to FAC. This last option seems better, as the list is a bit short and it makes more sense inside a broader article on the subject. But anyway, it is a good work. Afonso Silva 20:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]