Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Everest/archive1

Mount Everest
Recently involved in the naming controversy. Radhanath Sikdar and his contribution to finding this magnificient peak was widely underestimated in the world media. The article and the controversy existed before my revision. I added a bit of impetus to this tall problem! Drbalaji md
 * Object. Not bad, but it needs more:
 * There's virtually no geological information. What kind of material is the mountain made of? When did it form exactly? Also strange: the range, the Himalayas, isn't mentioned in the article (only the table).
 * I guess it is impossible to be comprehensive with anything in this universe. You can find deficiencies in every single one of these wikipedia pages. Human endeavour is so imperfect in every domain - Dear Mr.know all --Drbalaji md 22:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Featured articles should at the least be comprehensive, even if they are unlikely to be perfect. &mdash; Matt 23:34, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I do not understand the distinction between the two! Well. If by just adding the geology of the rock the article becomes comprehensive, I would spend some effort adding that information. --Drbalaji md 00:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * A comprehensive article covers all of the relevant information on a topic, whereas a perfect article is one which cannot be improved. A featured article should be comprehensive, but is not going to be perfect. Thanks for agreeing to add the geology information. 01:06, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * What about the pre 19-century history? The Tibetans/Nepalese give pretty interesting names to the mountain, does it play a role in their history or mythology? Why do the Indians think the mountain has the wrong name?
 * it would be nice if you stop being so superflous while doing a critical review of an article. What you have ignorantly questioned is the core of a long history of 'war of words' on that site! Please try to delve a little deeper before throwing perfunctory comments. --Drbalaji md 22:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't what you mean by this, and I don't see why a "history of 'war of words'" has anything to do with me reviewing this article. What I was trying to say is that the history section seems to start at the time where it was first measured by Sikdar. I would like to know something about the history before the 19th century. If that information is not available, or there is no pre-19 century history (likely not), let me know. Jeronimo 07:29, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The "ascents" section is not that different from the "timeline", each section is a point, not part of a story. Perhaps the less important parts of the ascents could be moved to the timeline, or otherwise the the ascents section should be rewritten.
 * is this your POV? --Drbalaji md 22:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem to have a point of view about how an article should be structured, surely? I agree with Jeronimo; the one-sentence paragraphs don't flow well in a narrative section. &mdash; Matt 23:34, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I did not object either. I just wanted to know :) If you think it would be nice, anyone of us can change it to make it look better! --Drbalaji md 00:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * There must be many books written about Mount Everest, but there are none listed as a reference.
 * is referring to a book mandatory for every single article here? --Drbalaji md 22:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea to Cite your sources. &mdash; Matt 23:34, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * good ideas, agreed. But my question was "are they mandatory?" --Drbalaji md 00:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean; mandatory for what / according to who, exactly? A decent references section will make for a better article. &mdash; Matt 01:06, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * No, it's not mandatory. But it makes the article more verifiable and gives readers points to find more information on the topic Jeronimo 07:29, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Jeronimo 07:54, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The article is only half way there since there is hardly any info on the geology of this mountain (which is rather interesting). The history section is also only half way there - where is the pre-20th century history? Also, what about local lore and legend concerning the mountain? And wasn't there border disputes concerning Everest? --mav
 * Oppose. While this is a good start, a large number of key topics are missing. There is virtually no mention of the sherpa population who make Everest challenges possible. Nor is there any mention of the increasingly problematic environmental impact of expeditions. Beyond a list of expeditions, there is no description of commonly-used routes, first climbs for said routes (the first North Face ascent, for instance, was almost as historic a climb as the original Hillary/Tenzig ascent), or political issues; ie, the long wait for access from the Chinese side. In short, this baby article is healthy but has some growing to do before it is of feature quality. Denni &#9775; 22:42, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)