Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indus Valley Civilization/archive1

Indus Valley Civilization
Invalid featured few weeks ago, see Talk:Indus_Valley_Civilization for details. Defeatured and renominated, since it is up to FAC status now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:30, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Old nomination
 * Indus Valley Civilization An outstanding example of multiple authors evolving a well-written, polished and professional entry. Wetman 02:53, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Object; my complaint that I made when it appeared on the front page remains unresolved, there's no map. --Golbez 22:43, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Explain how it didn't go through FAC properly last time. Everyking 23:34, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe what he is saying is that it was a featured article, and it was defeatured (IE, listed on featured article removal candiadates where consensus was to remove it), and that he is renominating it now. &rarr;Raul654 02:28, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, but what caused it to be defeatured? I mean, I can't really talk about it being featured now unless I know why it was defeatured before. Everyking 12:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * See this. &rarr;Raul654 13:38, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * This is a whole civilization here. Granted it's a pretty obscure one, but can't we get some more detail? I'm not asking for the article to grow massively, but I'd like to see the article fleshed out enough that we can at least see a few more subarticles branched off. That's not an object per se, though, because that's partially not an objection that can be addressed with this particular article. Everyking 15:38, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Object. It doesn't matter why it was defeatured, we simply have to evaluate the present version for feature-worthiness. First of all, references are missing. A map is missing -- is the "larger than Mesopotamia+Egypt" claim justified, if most of the settlements are along the Indus? and, most difficult in this article, the "Sarasvati" conjectures have to be cleanly separated from the archaeological evidence. many wordings are suggestive, i.e. "we would like there to be a connection, but we cannot prove it". This is the stuff cranks thrive on, and we have to be very conscientous about what to include. Some parts sound more than dreams of a Golden Age than matter of fact description of archaeological remains. examples:
 * Its writing system, Indus script, remains undeciphered, and it is not known whether it gave birth to the later Brahmi script. &mdash; note: there is a 1000 years gap between the Indus "script" and Brahmi. We could as well say "it is not known whether it gave birth to the Japanese script".
 * The people of Indus were great lovers of the fine arts, and especially dancing, painting, and sculpture.
 * For 700 years, the Indus civilization provided its peoples with prosperity and abundance and its artisans produced goods of surpassing beauty and excellence.
 * geologists used satellite photographs to trace the course of ancient rivers through the Indus Valley, identifying them with the legendary Sarasvati River. (geologists 'identified' a prehisotoric river with a legendary one? reference?)
 * It is puzzling that the most ancient Vedic texts speak of a beautiful river, the Sarasvati. They recall a thriving, utopian lifestyle that emerged along its banks. it is puzzling that there are rivers mentioned in the vedas?? 'utopian lifestyle'? in the eye of the beholder, I should say
 * Perhaps the most important legacy of the Indus civilization, if such a legacy exists, was its apparent non-violence (in contrast to the warlike Indo-Europeans) &mdash; strike this blatant piece of pov
 * Even after they are toned down, most of these statements could do with some sort of reference. dab (&#5839;) 15:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Object strongly. No references. This is a subject that is almost impossible to be accurate and NPOV without good research. - Taxman 03:21, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)