Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South India/archive2

South India

 * Nominator(s): Magentic Manifestations (talk) 08:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a region of India. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 08:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

a455bcd9
A few comments on image: a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * File:Silk route.jpg: not sourced (and SVG would be better?)
 * File:Vijayanagara 1450s.png: not sourced and and not SVG
 * File:South Indian territories.svg: not colorblind-friendly. One source is a low-quality personal website that needs to be replaced by a better source.
 * File:DravidianTree.png: either wrong or not up-to-date, the current edition of Ethnologue shows different subfamilies: https://www.ethnologue.com/subgroup/1265/ In any case, Glottolog is considered better for language classification and is in open access so it could (should?) be used instead: https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/drav1251 (SVG version)
 * File:India climatic zone map en.svg: the source for the climatic zones is a deadlink: https://cee45q.stanford.edu/2003/briefing_book/images/india_climate_map.jpg It comes from an old "Social Entrepreneurship Startup" course at Stanford: https://web.archive.org/web/20130505185905/http://cee45q.stanford.edu/2003/ We need a better source. I think that File:Koppen-Geiger Map IND present.svg is better.
 * File:SouthIndiaAgePyramid.jpg: not sourced
 * File:Railway network of India.png: not sourced
 * File:Major crop areas India.png: correctly sourced by a high quality source but unfortunately our version does not accurately match the source.


 * Have addressed all the image issues. Removed where not sourced and added alternate as suggested wherever feasible.Magentic Manifestations (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Solved for me! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh
Will review the article soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose from Airship
In my opinion, the article does not meet 1c) and 2c) of the featured article criteria—the quality of sourcing is below what should be expected. There are significant instances of WP:CITEKILL, many references are missing basic information such as page ranges, location, publisher, etc., but above all there are far fewer high-quality sources than should be expected from an FA. Among varied instances, the article has two sources from the nineteenth century,, (without the PDF), , , and many others I chose not to highlight. To be an FA, the article needs to incorporate far more high-quality sources and to cite them correctly. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I have been working on the sources. Have taken your comments as well and have actioned on the concerned ones. If you have any other concerns, it would be helpful if you could point to specific sources so that I can work on the same.Magentic Manifestations (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Coord note
With no commentary for over a fortnight, this nom appears to have stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. I'd suggest taking it to peer review (pinging the users who have stopped by here, and others who might be interested) before considering a renomination here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)