Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tamils/archive1
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FACBot (talk | contribs) at 23:20, 29 December 2015 (Archiving 'Tamils'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
- 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 delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 1:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC) [1].
Also note: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tamil people/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tamil people
- Notified: Vadakkan, Sundar, Subramanian, Wikiproject India, Wikiproject Dravidian civilizations, Wikiproject Tamil civilization
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review. The article has been a prime candidate for FAR since 2010 and at that time Dana boomer and I had some discussion on getting this here. However, I didn't follow through on time. We've had posts about some of the problems on the talk page: Nov 2010, Oct 2013, Talk:Tamils#Featured Article Review. The major issues include (a)quality of sources used within the article, (b)image use -- while copyright vios are a regular concern, the random use of images without context is also a problem (c)Undue weight to certain aspects, including synthesis of information from external sources, (d) some copyvios have been inserted into the article and have stayed in for a while (a deeper check is still needed). I have also started a deeper source evaluation here; hoping it would be ready by the time we go to FARC. —SpacemanSpiff 07:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I was hoping this would get some comments. Personally I don't think this is an easy fix, the history is complex and over the years a lot of unsourced content has been dropped in front of references. There's a lot of OR and POV stuff that's being edit warred over even during this review.—SpacemanSpiff 07:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC. Sourcing, stability and copyright problems. A couple of years ago, I tried to fix up Azerbaijanis and eventually gave up after a large amount of work because it proved to be a wasteful time sink. This article appears to be suffering in a similar way, and I doubt it will be possible to fix it through this process. DrKay (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Got to know about the FAR just today. Agree, the quality of the article has come down in the recent years. May I ask to kindly allow a reasonable period of time? —Vensatry (ping) 06:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
I note recent editing by blocked users. The articles's size and broadness/complexity means it needs a detailed FARC to come though with its star intact. Concerns are fidelity to sourcing, stability and risk/presence of copyvios. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but that's only one part of the whole mess. If you see this revert of mine (since reinserted) you'll notice how some of the POV nonsense is taking over the article:
"The Tamil rebels in Sri Lanka reflected some elements of Tamil martial traditions which included worship of fallen heroes (Maaveerar Naal) and practice of martial suicide. They carried a Suicide pill around their neck to escape the captivity and torture."
"A remarkable feature besides to their willingness to sacrifice is, that they were well organized and disciplined. It was forbidden for the rebels to consume tobaccos, alcohols, drugs and to have sexual relationship."
- It is really unfortunate as this is a subject that has significant scholarly study, but over the past three to four years the article has become a place to promote fringe perspectives and most editors who've been interested in maintaining this article have simply given up. —SpacemanSpiff 04:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Unsourced statements from February 2011; dead external links from August 2015; apparently unsourced weasel words, such as "what is considered to be folk Hinduism"; mixture of American and British spelling; inclusion of material in the lead that is not found in the article body. DrKay (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry: Any update here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: Sorry for the delay in getting back. I don't think I'll be able to repair this article in the given time frame. —Vensatry (Talk) 08:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I will close it shortly with outstanding issues of deadlinks, unformatted references, more worryingly POV issues that need to be investigated but most of all lack of activity. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, 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. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.