Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Hinduism

Hinduism[edit]

Article is still a featured article.

A huge, very excellent article, but unfortunately very few references, and as a minor note no inline citations. As an article that will certainly be considered to be a crucial article in Wikipedia 1.0, I don't think this should be called featured until it is brought up to the vigorous current standard. Judgesurreal777 06:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Fantastic improvement, lots of references and citations along with a very thorough re-working. I think it's at FA status now Judgesurreal777 22:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~remove, resubmit to FAC~~ [change vote to: move to FA review] . I'd give it {{GA}} any day, but without a single inline citation, it's basically an essay. The "References" list one single 1979 book on Hinduism. It was featured in April 2004, I do not think that in its present shape it is up to our present FA standards. If people plod through it adding citations, it may be (but we won't know until that is done, so far, we're pretty much taking the authors' word on everything). There are minor pov issues too, but it's not as bad as it could be. It is also too long and should be shortened by at least 15k. The "Important themes and symbols in Hinduism" section for instance could be a short paragraph or link list without loss to the article (everything is covered in sub-articles). dab (ᛏ) 12:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you. I find the section on "themes and symbols" to be very significant. It not only answers some very important questions that non-Hindus have regarding Hinduism (Whats that dot?, Why do you use swastika?) but it is done in as concise of a manner as possible. This is one case where the extra length is needed. However, changes can be made in some other places to alleviate the problem by looking back at the original FA article.--Blacksun 03:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the article is too long. mention the concepts, treat them in detail in their dedicated articles. Why does the Hinduism article need a full discussion of the Gayatri mantra, giving it in transcription, Devanagari (redundant), IPA (redundant) and translation? There is a Gayatri article, after all. dab (ᛏ) 08:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fine, since we have Wikipedia:Featured article review, and since the article is being actively improved, I'll change my vote to "move to FA review". My concern remains (a) references/literature, (b) length. dab (ᛏ) 11:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FA Review: it is my opinion that this article should be moved to FA review, which will allows editors to discuss the problems and address them. There a couple of editors scrambling to improve the article as we speak, so I think that the FARC should not proceed further until the FA review is on. Rama's Arrow 22:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I've started the review. Please don't go through with FARC until we've had an opportunity to address the problems. Rama's Arrow 13:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got two weeks, the clock is ticking. :) But seriously if it can't be substantially fixed in time, removing it and having it re nominated at FAQ may stimulate greater effort and a higher quality for the article in the end anyway. - Taxman ^Talk 15:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Remove~~ for now. It's definatly a Good Article but it's not at FA-level. It could be, and no doubt will be soon, and at that point it should be resubmitted. -AK Mask Talk 23:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to Keep per recent changes to the article. Good job guys. -M^ask

00:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is rather harsh. Why? Wikipedia guideline on this matter states, "Before listing here, leave comments detailing the article's deficiencies on its talk page, and leave some time for them to be addressed. One may also consider listing the article on Wikipedia:Featured article review." Yes, you did leave a warning in the talk pages. However, this was done at 23:41 on March 13th, 2006 and then on 12:13, 16 March, 2006 you nominated it for removal of FA article. I do not believe that 36 hours and 32 minutes is an appropriate amount of warning. People have already started making good progress on addressing the concerns raised less than four days after your warning. It is really easy to demote someone's hard work but far tougher to create something. I find it very curious as to how excited some of you are on demoting it instead of giving the people sufficient amount of time to address the concerns. All I can say is that it rather makes me not want to spend my free time on articles to get them to a featured article quality *shrugs* You might find that as an immature reaction but that is the first reaction I had when I looked at the time stamps.--Blacksun 23:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this article on and off for quite some time. Every now and again, there were cleanup efforts because the crap kept piling up. Every now and then there were comments as to the deficient citation. If listing the article here gets people to reference it, hey, that's the objective achieved. But it won't hurt the article to go through FAC again. And that's what counts: what will benefit the article. I repeat that very little is needed to get it to undisputed FA status. Cut it to below 60k. Fix the References section, and voila. The Referencing progress is looking good, but the Literature section is still a joke. Remember, this is the article on "Hinduism". We have one book treating Hinduism as such, Chaudhuri, Hinduism: A Religion to Live By (from the title, a work of proselytization rather than scholarship). Then we have two books on the Bhagavad Gita (what are they doing here? we have a Bhagavad Gita article). Likewise, there are references to primary texts (Upanishads, Rigveda, and Yajurveda, in Hindi! translation) all of which have their own articles. I am sure there must be some books on Hinduism beyond Chaudhuri's 1979 work. dab (ᛏ) 08:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well like they say dont judge a book by its cover, same can be said about name. That book is considered a classic in terms of scholarship value in the west. Also, Bhagwad Gita is a very important hindu text. Your question is like someone asking "what are books on bible doing in an article on Christianity?" Makes zero sense. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Also, their are quite a few references to journal articles and I am sure their will be more. Did I miss some wikipedian rule regarding some type of reference quota on books? Regarding the size issuse, progress is being made (68kb now). Lets see if we get down to 60. And you are assuming when you say that it won't hurt it to go through FAC again. I have seen plenty of ex FA articles never again make it. Just my two cents. (Blacksun 09:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Of course the Gita is relevant to Hinduism. My point is that editions of primary texts are not helpful as further reading on Hinduism as a whole. Fine, take Christianity. Not a FA, mind you. Yet its bibliography is worlds better than the Hinduism one, featuring titles like A World History of Christianity, Christian Theology: An Introduction, Christian Theology Reader, Mere Christianity, A History of the Development of Doctrine, Systematic Theology (an ecumenical trilogy), A Short History of Christianity, The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy etc. The present references section of Hinduism would rather correspond to a "Christianity" bibliography of "References: The Bible." dab (ᛏ) 11:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]