Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:39 June 19, 2008.

2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it covers the matter wholesomely. It has been peer reviewed which has been archived here. A failed WP:GAN; the actionable objections raised in its not-so convincing review have been dealt with to the best of my capacity. I know the failed nom is a major setback for the article but by nominating it at FAC I wish to garner a wider opinion on its worth. Your suggestions and criticism are welcome and deemed priceless. I hope I can address them satisfactorily. Thanks, (Self nomination) - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * http://www.ptinews.com/pti/ptisite.nsf/$all/BFD529130A0CF82F652573EF001D37C3 deadlinks with both the tool and by direct clicking
 * Replaced with Times of India link


 * Current ref 46 "Mumbai taxis go on flash strike after attack..." is lacking a publisher
 * Done


 * What makes http://www.topnews.in/ a reliable source?
 * Replaced with The Indian Express


 * Likewise http://www.sify.com/?
 * Sify.com is web portal that publishes news from established news agency sources like Press Trust of India, Associated Press, IANS, UNI etc. These agency sources are mentioned on their pages (top-left corner)
 * Leave this out for other reviewers, mainly because we're not all familiar with Indian sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To make matters easy I have replaced all the Sify refs with citations from The Hindu, Financial Express and The Economic Times. Lets bid farewell to Sify. Thanks, KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just waiting on the deadlink issue? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Current ref 103 Kiran Tare "Raj promises more of the same" is lacking a publisher
 * Done


 * http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20080305/901551.html (current ref 107) will not load for me at all.
 * Replaced with Bihar Times
 * Otherwise sources look good, links checked out (except for the one above) with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ealdgyth, for checking the sources. Kindly re-check the new links after the above mentioned changes. Are they fine? – KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King ( talk ) 16:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Should use million/hundred thousands (or the whole numeric figure) alongside lakhs.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I have a query (posted on your talk page) KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images: Kelly hi! 02:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:MNS flag.png should be in SVG format per WP:IUP.
 * Image:Mumbai violence 20080205.jpg comes from the Press Trust of India, a news agency. I'm afraid this makes the image unacceptable per WP:NFCC. The same applies toImage:Mumbai 20080212.jpg.
 * Image:Raj Thackeray as Hitler.jpg needs a little stronger rationale to satisfy WP:NFCC. Right now the rationale just says "(s)how the reader the magazine which caused a controversy" - this needs to be expanded to explain why the image would significantly increase a reader's understanding beyond the text.
 * Thanks Kelly for your comments regarding the rationale and copyright issues. I have requested the uploader of Image:MNS flag.png to convert it into svg format. The rationale of Image:Raj Thackeray as Hitler.jpg has also been revised. I have now nominated Image:Mumbai violence 20080205.jpg for speedy deletion using { } I need some more time for resolving (if at all they can be)the issues regarding Image:Mumbai 20080212.jpg. Will keep you updated. Thanks, KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: Well-written and well-referenced article.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

All dates need to be formatted in the international date format: (1 January 2008). indopug (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * comment
 * Thanks Indopug. I re-visited Manual of Style and it says nothing about the International date format. But then I saw the last India-related FA–2007 Samjhauta Express bombings. It uses International Date formatting.
 * Hence It would be wise to switch over to the International style (just like you suggest).
 * Thanks, KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done (Note: I have changed all full dates ie.February 3, 2008 -> 3 February 2008. Should I also change dates without year? (ie.May 9-> 9 May)?? KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hah, if you check the Samjautha FAC, you'd see that I had suggested/implemented the date format change. I can't seem to find the suggestion in MoS either (although I know its in there somewhere), I'll find it eventually. And yes, it should be 3 February . LoCE is broken beyond repair, hundreds of articles are in the backlog. Asking somebody at WP:PRV is recommended nowadays. I'll be busy with a few other on/off-Wiki things for about a week, after which I can hopefully read up on the topic and give it a go myself. I only read the lead yesterday, and while I removed the obvious redundancies, I found problems with the basic structure itself. I'll read the rest and give a review later tonight. indopug (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will wait till then. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No specific date format is prescribed by MOS: dates need to be consistently formatted in whichever format is chosen, and consistently linked or not linked. To see if you've done this correctly, log out of Wiki and see if you see consistently formatted dates, then log in to Wiki and see if all dates are formatted consistently according to your preference settings.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * I had difficulty following the details and the reasons for this unrest. Part of it, I think, is a cultural gap. At least where I live there are few political parties. I think the issue of outsiders coming in and not assimilating is easily understood, but the various names of the parties kept confusing me, and I had to keep scrolling up to understand who was who. You may have to simplify that issue.
 * Disambiguate hawker, and describe what one is briefly.
 * Perhaps part of my confusion is that there don't seem to be concrete examples of how North Indians were adversely affecting the standards of living for the people of Maharashtra. Were they fighting for jobs? Housing? What's the root cause of the riots? It seems, according to the article, that a politician and an actor are taking rather silly potshots at each other in the press, and then the region erupts into violence. I'm trying not to be superior, but that seems very, very silly.
 * A petition was drawn against someone for his remarks: to do what? People signed something asking someone to do what about someone's comments?
 * Why target a theater playing a film? These acts seem random and again, if they don't make sense, they seem foolish.
 * The article needs a copy edit. There are some bumpy spots in prose. For instance, saying people where beaten is smoother than saying they were beaten up. This sentence: He was severely beaten following which he fell unconscious is very awkward.
 * Is there a difference between rioters and activists?
 * The blockquotes are too short to deserve being differentiated from the rest of the text.
 * Who said this? It was perhaps one of the largest exoduses from a single district in the country ever
 * Crore has to be explained.
 * I had to stop here. I could no longer understand the following text without a basis for comprehending the riots. I don't believe the article is ready for feature right now. I wondered even if analysis is possible only three months following the unrest. Is it too soon to be featuring a topic that may not really be over?
 * I know it's a lot of hard work to write this article. It appears that a lot of research went into it, but I also think too much is taken for granted in understanding the political factions of India. I think the article would benefit by going through GA. FAC should not be a second peer review - major problems should be taken care of before articles come here. I wish you luck with it. --Moni3 (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your concerns and I do feel it needs changes are required. I shall make them as soon as I can. As for the cause of the violence– it sure is petty– but thats how politics works in India–caste, region, language etc are cards which politicians usually play–and succeed as a unfortunately 44% of the population is uneducated. These issues are important probably due to the diversity in the society and segration coupled with discrimination at different levels. (Politics≠Logic!) (The cause can be interpreted as xenophobia or [Nativism (politics))
 * On the attack on theatre– They attacked theatres which were showing Bhojpuri films. Bhojpuri is the vernacular lingo of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. I thought just wiki-linking Bhojpuri and Bhojpuri films will be enough but…I guess a bit more explanation is needed!


 * I know the random acts of violence against North Indians seem foolish, but the fact is hate crimes follow this pattern. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A fundamental element of the article should be understanding why the riots took place. If it's your claim that they took place because the rioters are poor and uneducated, easily swayed by popular suggestion that unrest is a form of activism, that should be in the lead and in the first paragraph in the Background section, with renowned Indian culture analysts saying the same thing in quotes. If that information doesn't exist, or you haven't found it, the article will be incomplete and therefore not ready for feature until the cause of the unrest is stated right out. The immigration of people from North India is not reason enough without an explanation that this is somehow threatening to the people in Maharashtra, that something concrete (i.e. Money, Jobs, Regional Identity, etc.) will be compromised. In the state where I live, the largest immigration occurred within the past 40 years: Cuban exiles in the state of Florida. They adapted quite well, and so did the region where they settled. That's my local frame of reference, which may be why I'm so confused. If you're taking for granted that readers will know this about Indian politics, that a massive influx of people from another state will cause violence and rioting, that's insufficient. It has to be explained. --Moni3 (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.