Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ayyavazhi/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 03:19, 20 December 2007.

Ayyavazhi

 * check links

Self Nom, (Partly). After a long time I personally feel now the article is fit to be a featured one. Thanks White Dot...!!!&reg; 08:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I already see two huge no-nos in an FAC.
 * References section is not allowed to have a scroll box or anything that hides part of it in some way. They must be expanded and clearly visible at all times.  Additionally, what is a non-contextual image doing at the top of that section anyway?
 * Contractions outside of quotations are used. Another basic no-no.
 * Even though the article is summary styled, it is still too large (92 KB).
 * Million in the lead should not be linked, as it is not jargon.
 * Combine the numerous stubby paragraphs found in this article. Paragraphs should have at least three to four sentences.
 * The last three sections need to be reordered so that it complies with the order set at WP:GTL.
 * …and more. Please give this article a proper copyedit so that the prose is up to par, and additionally complies with the MOS. 哦，是吗？ (review O) 09:09, 14 December 2007 (GMT)
 * Agree with User:O's comment on scroll mechanism in citations - you're supposed to be able to click on [923] and get to the citation - the scroll impedes that. (and I don't believe that space taken up by citations is anything to worry about in terms of FA)--Keer lls ton 09:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree that scrolling references should be avoided. However, the rest of this is a waste of the nominator's time, and our patience. In particular, WP:GTL says that It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices, but the "Notes" and "References" sections should be next to each other. For example, you may put "See also" above "Further reading" or "Notes and references" above "See also". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur with the above: there is absolutely no MOS requirement for these sections to follow any particular order, and in fact specifically states that there is not. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be an improvement to the article to have the books listed separately, and the notes in short form. (e.g, if there were a bibliography containing "Dr. R.Ponnu: Sri Vaikunda Swamigal and the Struggle for Social Equality in South India, Madurai Kamaraj University, 2000", then the last footnote could read "Ponnu (2000), p. 100" or "Ponnu, Sri Vaikunda Swamigal, p.100" Either would be more readable.)
 * Citations should not contain "'s", i.e "Ponnu", as above, not "Ponnu's"; but this is not a matter so serious as to warrant opposing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead is overlinked. The problem is not million, which is defensible as an effort to avoid ambiguity, but religion, revolution, reformation, and feudal. The last is doubly undesirable, since this is not Western European feudalism, and the word is being abused. The rest of the article looks fine in that respect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Can the lead-editors comment on the reliability of citations from websites like: nairs.org, cinesouth.com, nadar.kuttyjapan.com, kheper.net, poongaa.com, vaikunt.org, ayyavazhi.org, tamilstar.com. We also have a citation in the article from a blog: www.youthcurry.blogspot.com. -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 11:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This article has six citations with dead links - this needs addressing. LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Object publisher details and isbns etc need to be clearly laid out. Who are the people who wrote these books. Also the other non-RS raised by Amarrg.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 03:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.