Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/K. R. Narayanan/archive1

K. R. Narayanan[edit]

This wiki article is one of the most well researched and exhaustive reference on the subject. When KRN died a few months back,this article received a lot of limelight. Many of the obits in the media resembled the article almost word by word. (For eg, See The Rediff Obit). This article has got a press reference too (See [1]).I believe this article demands a featured article status. I've done a few minor edits to the article,so this may be considered as a self-nom.--Sahodaran 04:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. No footnotes. Plenty of references but we need to know exactly what the source for everything is. Daniel Case 04:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking clarification: did you mean to ask that the embedded links be reformatted as footnotes? Italo 02:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a start, yes. Daniel Case 02:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done Italo 03:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Footnotes, as above, and the lead section should be three paragraphs, as per WP:LEAD. Fieari 04:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An additional lead paragraph has beed added. The footnote problem is addressed in the response to the preceding objection. Italo 02:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Consider using m:Cite/Cite.php for your footnotes and references instead of inserting raw URLs. It's easier to manage and automatically numbers your references. AreJay 03:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Used it. Italo 03:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to peer review. The article should be improved on several counts taking advice from people there. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be a bit more specific on the areas in the article that needs to be improved?Thanks--Sahodaran 04:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support tbh I think it's great --PopUpPirate 01:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Peer review: A review is essential - otherwise its a good article, given the extensive documentation of references. Note two problems - (1) Lead - not good intro, no quote (seemingly glorifies) and (2) 60kb is too large. Needs to be below 50. Rama's Arrow 14:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Peer review: A very well-written article, but just think: would people be interested in reading it? With all due respect to this great president of India, most of the other featured article from/on India had some inherent interesting theme.Narayanan's activities were remarkable for certain unprecedented actions like casting vote.I do not think the second biographic FA from India (the first one being, of course, Mahatma Gandhi) should be of him, despite the article being a greatly stuffed one. More historically/ politically important person's biography should be nominated and worked upon for improvement.--Dwaipayanc 15:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]