Wikipedia:Featured article review/British East India Company/archive1


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

The article was removed 11:59, 17 February 2007.

Review commentary

 * Messages left at Singapore, India, Chancemill, Henry Flower, Jengod. Jeffpw 09:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is very lacking, and when it is cited, has a mixture of citation styles. A large portion is uncited, while others have been called "POV" and some cited for not viewing it from a world standpoint. Dark jedi requiem 05:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments - what a mess! Full of POV, neutrality, disputed, etc. tags by an anon editor:, but no messages left in the talk page. I removed the "In Popular Culture" section, because it is totally unsourced and not directly related with the subject (PS2 games, etc.). I moved also 2 flags into Flags section. As a glance,
 * The lead is too short to summarize the article,
 * Footholds in India section is disputed. Somebody with Indian background should take a look to give balance views.
 * Opium trade section is also tagged with neutrality and accuracy. Now this is for somebody with China history.
 * Stubby and listy "Ships" section and poor "East India Company Records" section. These two sections were added after the article was featured.
 * Too many see also items. Should be merged into the main text.
 * Lack of inline citations, there are some citations needed tags and I found some statements/facts are unsourced. Yes, there are some ext. links in the main article, but some ext. links have been there since the article was featured:, how come?
 * I'll try to help, but can't promise of getting sources. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 17:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are POV (1d), insufficient citations (1c), stub sections and LEAD (2). Marskell 07:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove Insufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 22:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove, article hasn't progressed since FAR nomination. --Peta 00:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove, I would say that a lot of works should be done for this article to gain FA status. A major concern is its neutrality, so it will need a total rehaul of the sourcing and rewriting. Bringing it back to FAC would be a good idea. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 08:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove per above &mdash; little work done, and it requires a lot of work. &mdash; Deckiller 02:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.