Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sikhism/archive1

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 01:28, 17 August 2009 [1].

---

Sikhism

Review commentary

I would like it if this article was (still) of featured-article quality, but I think that it is lacking in some featured-article criteria. E.g.:

• (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;

Portions such as "the Sikh Nation/Community" and "Basing its conclusions on a study of the old handwritten copies of the Dasam Granth preserved at Sri Takht Sahib at Patna and in other Sikh gurudwaras, this report affirmed that the Holy Volume was compiled at Anandpur Sahib in 1698[3] ." appear to have been copied and pasted into the article from outside sources.

• (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;

The history section gives a decent overview of Sikh history through the time of the Gurus (1708), but then gives less than a dozen sentences on the period up through the partition of India (1947) and stops after Operation Blue Star (1984). This is not comprehensive, even for an overview in a main article on a topic.

• (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;

It has tags for citations.

These are emblematic of the problems with composition and focus for this article, but are not exhaustive of its shortcomings. This is certainly better than most Wikipedia articles, but I do not think that it is fair to say that it is of featured article quality. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It was much better around the time it was featured: [2]. Unfortunately, it appears as if it's not been that greatly looked after since. Regarding the history section - not much has changed regarding the "religion" since the beginning of the 20th Century. I think a lot of the more recent stuff is related more to Sikh people than the Sikh religion (and I think this is a valid distinction). 93.95.122.2 (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness , prose, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per above concerns and no apparent attempts to bring this back to FA status. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delist. The concerns are valid, and no work has been done to address them. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.