Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buddhist art/archive1

Buddhist art
A scholarly and well-illustrated approach to a broad artistic and religious subject spanning many centuries and cultures.--Pharos 04:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. The references in the article are somewhat strange. Apart from the format being non-standard, I suspect two of the references are incomplete. For example, the first (“National Museum Arts asiatiques- Guimet” (Editions de la Reunion des musees nationaux, Paris, 2001).) is actually the name of a French museum. Does the article refer to a museum catalog? a yearly publication issued by the museum? Another reference does not indicate authors (“The Times Atlas of Archeology” (Times Books Limited, London, 1991)). Phils 17:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Done PHG 12:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I withdraw my comment and support. Phils 15:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * support I thought this was an excellent article. I liked its format, telling the story of Buddhist art through historical sections and national sections.  Examples are also chosen tastefully.Dinopup 01:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. This article is very close. Just a few minor things. 1) The lead section should be longer, and give a better summary of the article. 2) The "Southern art" gets a long and useful introduction (but please remove the italic there), while the "Northern art" doesn't. 3) It would be useful to annotate the external links so it is more clear what the pages they link to describe. Jeronimo 08:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Done PHG 12:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Great, support. Jeronimo 21:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I will try to add a list of artists who contributed to its history and write couple of articles along the way. Revth 04:51, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. A lot of what is there is very good, but 1) It needs some copyediting. I have eliminated the ones I felt I could, but the article still suffers from poor flow of the text in places due to one and two sentence paragraphs. Those highlight areas that either need to be expanded or merged nicely into other paragraphs. The ones I did fix need a bit of improvement still too. 2) many statements are presented as facts when they should instead be attributed to a source. For ex "Korean Buddhist art has been characterized by sobriety, a rightness of tone and a certain sense of abstraction." I could disagree and say x, but that is not the point. Wikipedia articles should not make claims like that, primary or secondary sources should instead be cited. With those fixed I would definitely support. - Taxman 22:58, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Replaced the Korea comment by an equivalent quote. Thank you for your improvements on the flow. PHG 22:01, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)