Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shahbag/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC).

Shahbag

 * Nominator(s): Aditya (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

"Shahbag" is a demoted featured article, and can easily be tweaked to become one again. With community review and feedback (and, of course, affirmative action based on them) this looks promising to become an FA. Aditya (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed the non-free image from the protests section; you may want to look at the free images currently in use on the article about the protest to replace it. J Milburn (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Aditya (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose and urge withdrawal. It's certainly possible that this could become a FA-level article, but it's far from there now, and this really isn't a venue for this sort of article improvement.  I'm not confident of the reliability of all the sources.  There's deeply inconsistent formatting (are newspapers italicized, for example).  Notes 24 and 59 are bare links, 58 and 60 are little better.  The actual References section is a mess; many of these references aren't (as far as i can tell) cited anywhere in the article.  At least a couple don't resemble any sort of reliable source ("Old files and documents preserved at Ahsan Manzil Museum and Nawab State's Office", "Ahsanullah, Nawab, Personal Diary (Urdu) preserved at Ahsan Manzil."), and many others lack any sort of bibliographical information whatsoever.  All the book sources need identification numbers of one sort of another; I'd personally prefer WorldCat's OCLC numbers over Amazon's ASINs for obvious reasons, but that at least is probably editorial discretion.  I haven't looked at anything beyond the references, but I'd oppose promotion on those grounds alone.  Nothing referenced like this, in my opinion, is ready for FAC. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to pile on the objections, but the prose isn't any better. Sp33dyphil highlighted some problems below, but there's also a lead that isn't compliant with WP:LEAD, bolding that shouldn't be there in one section, issues with undue weight, issues with promotional content, and no shortage at all of uncited claims (even against the poor state of the references). There are issues with comprehensiveness as well: one of the reasons this is a defined area is that it represents a police precinct, but the article barely touches on that aspect (not even telling us when that was established). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per Squeamish Ossifrage. In addition, just by looking at "2013 Shahbag protest" alone, the article fails FA criteria 1a. It uses peacock terms ("The protest movement gathered force") that add nothing to the article, and the wording does not flow well. For example, looking at the third sentence, it has two clauses that start off with as. The final sentence talks about "protests", yet uses the word has. The nominator should therefore withdraw the nomination, give the article a copy-edit, and fix the references, before considering whether to nominate the article for FA status again. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Nom withdrawn. Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.