Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
Peer Review

Salute to All - I request your vote to make this a featured article. It has undergone an intensive process of expansion, formatting, copyediting and improvement through peer review. I know that the length is 68kb, but there are notable FAs which reach such a length. I welcome all objective advice and criticism to further improve this article. Rama&#39;s Arrow 22:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * NOTE: This article has 46KB of prose as of 23 May 2006


 * Support per nom. Rama&#39;s Arrow 16:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments:


 * Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.


 * As per WP:MOSDATE, dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.


 * Images with fair use tags need fair use rationales - please see WP:FUC.
 * Thanks, AndyZ t 23:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe I've addressed all your points If I missed any points or if there are any outstanding issues, lemme know. Rama&#39;s Arrow 23:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, years alone (like 1952) should not be linked, but with a date they should be. Dates alone (like January 6) should be linked however. AndyZ t 00:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * '''I've further addressed all your points Rama&#39;s Arrow 01:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment, I don't think fair use is justified for the TIME cover or the movie poster since they both do very little to add to the article.--Peta 00:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply Image:Sardartime.jpg "specifically describes the issue in question or its cover" - I believe this is properly justified for use in this article, as the pic is used in an article describing Patel's life and work at the time of the subject of the article in TIME, which discusses Patel's life and background at the time when he is taking charge of India's government with Nehru. Image:Sardar(film).jpg depicts the film representation of Patel, but I can understand why its not "FU" so I'll take it out. Rama&#39;s Arrow 00:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Excellent article. &mdash; Ravikiran 04:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Having read the article few times, I can give it my strong support. It is very polished and nicely referenced.  My only comment is regarding the section name "Cabinet mission and Partition."  Would something like "Role during partition" work better? --Blacksun 06:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Well written article. Deserves to be featured. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. A Fine article, however, could the references be neatened up a bit? .... 07:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. It went through a good peer review. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Followed the article from peer review. Excellent.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Object for the moment. There's much to admire in the article, but there's an awkwardness in some of the writing that falls short of the requirement for "compelling, even brilliant" prose. In the lead, for example, "accomplish the integration of India" is unidiomatic; "turmoiled regions" is incorrect; "His leadership obtained the swift unification", again, is not quite right, and there's a clash of mood later in that sentence ("Patel would lead initiatives"); and in: "he is also remembered as the "patron saint" of India's civil servants for his defence of them against political attack", whose political attack? Remove or explain. The rest of the text needs a thoughtful copy-edit along these lines. Tony 15:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Tony - I've copyedited the lead as per your suggestions. I'd like to know if the changes are ok - - and what other stuff needs copyediting. Please respond on the FAC page. Thanks, Rama&#39;s Arrow 16:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is largely a case of different writing styles. I kindav noticed what you are talking about too but I am not sure if different writing style means it is not brilliant prose.  --Blacksun 16:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've further addressed your points Rama&#39;s Arrow 04:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment, I don't think it's just the fair use images that are a problem here. Many of the ones listed as public domain give no rationale for this listing.  I think this needs to be cleared up. gren グレン 06:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but the rationale is exactly the one given in the PD-India description, as per Indian copyright law. Rama&#39;s Arrow 06:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. The images have fake copyright tags. I have notified the uploader. Warmongering attitude of Patel is not even touched. Substandard work. Anwar 08:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply. PD-India holds in the case of at least two of the three photographs cited by Anwar as these photographs could have been taken only before 1947 as Patel died in 1950 at the age of 75. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel that even the third one is in public domain as it is taken in 1928 and 60 years have passed since it was taken. Anwar, can you elaborate what "Warmongering attitude of Patel" you are talking about. Referenced would be helpful. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The criticism of Sardar Patel in regards to his use of force is present in the article. However, you will not find terms like "warmongering" as they can be hardly considered encyclopedic.  Here's to hoping that in the future you will read the article before calling it substandard :).  Furthermore, it is rather curious of you to demand exact dates of pictures that could have only been taken before 1947 and hence as Sundar stated qualify for PD-India.  Whats next? do we need to prove that Tagore's pictures qualify for PD-India even though he died before then?  Toodles. --Blacksun 17:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note User:Anwar saadat has been opposing all Indian RFAs, FACs, FPCs etc. Most if not all of these objections have been unreasonable. Thus I suggest that his vote be disregarded until he finds a better reason to oppose. The term warmongering can hardly be used in Wikipedia. There are no copyright infringements involved.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  08:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * His comments pretty much discredit themselves. - Taxman Talk 15:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply all the images in question are justified under PD-India. Criticism of Patel for allegedly compromising the rights of princely states and perceived anti-Muslim bias are in the "Legacy" sections as well as in relevant paras. Rama&#39;s Arrow 15:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - Very nice article. Has gone through a good peer review, and covers all aspects of Patel's life in a very nice manner. Is a very good read even at it's size. I fully support it becoming an FA. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Very well written article that has evolved into a spectacular work over the course of the last many months. AreJay 02:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support very good article. Is informative and that's what articles are meant to be.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  08:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Well done again Nirav.-- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|)  09:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent article, very well researched. - Taxman Talk 15:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support this well-written article. Saravask 19:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; Great work Rama's Arrow. I'm back! deeptrivia (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - good article. thoroughly researched and discussed... Lost 18:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)