Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nepal/archive1

Nepal
Self nom – worked on it recently. Copyedited by Tony, and reviewed by Saroj. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  09:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Nominate and support =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. The image Image:Nepalese Maoists.jpg is probably copyrighted, as the original source indicates both a photographer and an organization, and that organization is not a US government agency. --Carnildo 21:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll email the Panos site. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I've emailed the site, and removed the image from the Nepal page till I get confirmation (or denial) for its use. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I'm concerned that too much information is included in the main article, and not enough in the breakout articles. For instance, the History of Nepal article has no information about the history of the country prior to 400, while the Nepal article provides a fairly detailed history to around 1000 BCE. A reader looking for more in-depth information would be disappointed to find that the breakout article is less informative than the main article. Pburka 01:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I've summarised the history and dumped the older version there. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  10:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, and needs to be addressed, but I think I'm right in assuming that daughter articles are outside the criteria that apply here. Thx. Tony 06:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. No, contents of linked articles should not pull down the article on display here. The vote is for this particular article, not others. In the past there have been objections to red links in the article etc., but that has been shot down. While you do have a valid point, that can be easily mitigated by copying the contents from the main article to the sub articles. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong support. This is a good article on a wonderful country, good job done! Ruennsheng 08:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Neat effort. Pamri &bull; Talk 05:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Since I collaborated in this rewrite, my vote probably shouldn't count; all the same, I support the nomination. Tony 09:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Well written. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. My comment is only about the section history.  I think it is too detailed on some part of history and simply zero for some others.  This seems to reflect some POV.  The article jump from 1482 to "after decades" to mid-18th century.  It is a big hole indeed.  On the other hand many royalties and not so important characters appear like "king Jayasthitimalla" for example.  Such characters should not appear in such an article except if they are world known like Gandhi or Napoleon.  The same remark about historical fact, dates and battles like Kot Massacre or Sepoy Rebellion in 1857.  About the 20th century, it seems more or less nothing happened in Nepal from 1950 to 1996.  The comments on the events of 2005 should be put in politics section:  they are current events!  I personaly think the history section should be divided in subsections which would help the reader very much for example in order to recognize which are the major eras in the Nepali history and which ones are interesting to her.  Not everybody is interested in prehistory. All in all the history section is far to detailed and not enough structured to be easily read by someone with few knowledge on Nepal Vb 08:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Vb thank you for your comments:
 * No, I would prefer not to fragment the history by adding subsections.
 * I'll summarise the history section.
 * Note: Between 1959 and 1990 nothing really notable occured.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Summary complete. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  10:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Now the history section is much more readable. However some points are still unclear to me and I think they should be addressed. It is not clear whether Nepal was a region, a nation or a state in history. It is not clear when one began to speak about Nepal and the Nepalese and how. In particular, in the sentence
 * By 250 BCE, Nepal came under the influence of the Mauryan empire in northern India, and later became a puppet state under the Gupta Dynasty in the fourth century CE

It is not clear whether Nepal was then a politically united region. Was it some kind of federation? Confederation? Did this unification appear after military invasion? Civil uprising? Or just simply by inheritance? In the whole paragraph following the above mentioned sentence, it is not clear who ruled the country and even whether the country existed (as a province, a region, a nation?) For instance:
 *  The Licchavi dynasty went into decline in the late eighth century and was followed by a Newari era, from 879, although the extent of their control over the entire country is uncertain.

The entire country? The country as it is now? Maybe here an historical map of the country would be helpful. Vb 09:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional comments. No, my sources (www.loc.gov) just say that a "certain ruler of Nepal was supposed to have paid taxes to Samudragupta". The encarta site has a map which indicates that the region was under Gupta influence. I've made some cosmetic changes to the text though. Its hard to say the extent of Nepal in those days; and as mentioned in the lead, Nepal went through centuries of Balkanization.
 * Nepal, as a cohesive and modern nation came about in 1768. I've added a line on that. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  11:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe one should be more detailed on this point. How did Prithvi Narayan Shah manage to unify the country?  After years of war?  After a peaceful agreement?  If this event lead to the modern nation of Nepal, I think this could be more discussed.  It seems to be very difficult to find sources about Nepal before this date.  I think this should be said and references should be provided.  One could begin the first paragraph by a sentence like Not much is known about the area corresponding to the modern Nepal before...  Moreover the sentence In 1846, a plot to overthrow Jang Bahadur, a fast-rising military leader by the queen led to several hundred princes and chieftains executed after an armed clash between military personnel and administrators loyal to the queen. is a bit too complicated for me: Who executed who?  It is difficult to understand this from this sentence.  From the sentences The Treaty of Sugauli was signed ceding parts of the Terrai and Sikkim to the British in exchange for Nepalese autonomy. and  In 1923 the Britain and Nepal formally signed an agreement of friendship, in which Nepal's independence was recognised by the British. I have some difficulty to understand how far was Nepal autonomous from the British empire.  From a first reading I thought Nepal has been independent since 1816 but the second sentence seems to contradict this. Vb 13:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Another important point, the sentence In 2005, Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba resigned and King Gyanendra dissolved the parliament, declared martial law and restricted the freedom of the press. is misleading. From this I had the feeling the king dissolved the parlament as can often be the case in constitutional monarchies.  Surfing a bit on internet taught me the Prime Minister is now in prison and some analysts believe the king is trying to re-install an absolute monarchy. I think one should put already those facts in the head. Vb 13:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have had a look at the culture section and was surprised not to find anything about literature. I thought maybe there is no author in Nepal.  Surfing a bit told me the opposite: Bairagi Kainla and Daulat Bikram Bista seem to be well-known authors and I guess they are not the only ones.  In the same register I looked for modern nepalese painters and found many. This article should at least provide an overview of artistic production in Nepal. Vb 14:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply to your latest posts:
 * Expanded info on the making of Nepal in 1768
 * Not much is known about the area corresponding to the modern Nepal before... actually information is known, but the extent is unclear. The sources do not say if the information strictly pertains to the current boundaries of Nepal or not.
 * I've simplified the Kot Massacre sentence.
 * 1816 & 1923. Well in 1816, it was the British East India Company that signed the treaty. The treaty spelled the following: "cede Sikkim; pay us for the damages caused, lets be friends now and not attack each other, keep a British resident". The 1923 agreement was different. It was essentially by the United Kingdom (the UK took over the role of the EIC in 1857) and in a nutshell: "thanks for great help in supporting us through WW1, we now recognise u as an independent nation." Note this recognition was not extended to other kingdoms which made up 40% of India in 1947 which were mostly regarded as subjugate kingdoms of the British Empire. I've made some changes to the text.
 * In 2005, Prime Minister Sher No, the king plans to restore democracy, this was declared a two days back. I've added some info in the =History= and =Government=.
 * I know there's hardly anything on literature, I too found some names but can't gauge the importance of these authors since none of them have won any international awards AFAIK. I would prefer including well known works. I've emailed Saroj (see nom above) to ascertain if there are any novelists worth adding here. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I think you did a good job and you have addressed correctly most of my comments. However I am a bit surprised the article is already featured before our discussion is finished. Nevertheless I think the article is still in need for improvements.  From my point of view this article needs review from people knowing the culture of Nepal better.  I think the points you list provide the impression that the country's culture is mostly traditional and folkoristic what seems to be untrue from a rapid google.  No modern painter, writer or musician is listed (it is told about pop music but no artist or movement is listed).  Your point about the kings's declaration is not really an argument.  There are so many dictators promising free elections around the globe!  The article gives the impression the constitutional monarchy declared in 1990 will be there forever.  Articles on the BBC site seem to underline this is not an utterly NPOV.  In the head it is written the insurgents, who now control about seventy percent of the country.  Which 70%?  What is still the effective power of the king/government? Vb 07:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Great article that is well written. -- Hottentot
 * Support. One slight comment, however.
 * Nepal has the distinction of being the world's only Hindu state, with over eighty percent of the people following this faith.
 * Shouldn't "state" perhaps be "kingdom" as India also has >80% Hindus, or is Hinduism Nepal's "state" religion? Sortan 15:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hinduism is the state religion. Added a line in demographics. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Vb, let's continue this discussion on the Talk page for Nepal. With respect to literature, it's not easy to determine who is worth mentioning—many (most?) country articles don't attempt this. Tony 12:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)