Wikipedia:Featured article review/Buddhism

Buddhism

 * Article is no longer a featured article 04:04, February 15, 2006

The article is currently 72 kilobyte, which clearly violate section 5 requirement of featured article criterias. This means that most people can't or won't read the article. Most space is wasted on esotric details of buddhism. Plus most sister page linked to this main pages are too short or non existent. In many case, some section of the main page has more content than linked sister page. To top it off, several attempts to slim down the article has incited arguments between different sects of Buddhist denomiation. This article no longer provide good overview of buddhism. Plus, without removal of the featured article status, some will not accept that the article requires surgery. Strong Remove FWBOarticle


 * Speedy keep, clear bad-faith nomination and attempt to make a POINT; "without removal of the featured article status, some will not accept that the article requires surgery" says it all. &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 15:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It appear that you are involved in editing the article and belong to group who are not happy with my suggestion that this article need major revamp. I think you misunderstand the wiki recommendation you linked. The page you linked advice against people "editing" the article to prove point.  I, on the other hand, declared in talk page that I will no longer edit the article. I fully accept that I'm a part of the ongoing debate in talk page.  But the opinion that this article has become unmanageable is voiced by many in talk page though some disagree on how I go about fixing it. I came here after feeling that debate is not going anywhere. If you made your judgement based on the discussion in talk page, my comment here or my style of editing, please reconsider and focus on the article itsel.
 * I think you misread WP:POINT: "This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create in the Wikipedia itself proof that the rule does not work." This would be like the nominator nominating this article FARCing it because another article he had worken on was nominated for FARC. AndyZ 01:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have read the page correctly. It refers to someone "editing" the wikipedia to prove a point or "editing" by gaming system such as pushing 3 revert rule to the limit. What I'm doing has zero impact on editing process. Objection based on that page does not apply. FWBOarticle 07:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment, this article does need some serious copyediting.--nixie 22:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with Nixie; needs massaging to remove clumsiness. Take this awkward sentence structure, incl. punctuation, for example:
 * The principles by which a person can achieve enlightenment are known as the Buddhadharma, or simply—the Dharma, meaning (in this context) "law, doctrine, or truth."

I don't think the nominator's point about size is a strong one; please present a more specific argument that the size is inappropriate to the topic. Tony 23:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I accept that 32 is only recommended size and 50kb is recommended size for split. However, 32kb recommendation is based on well established studies of adult attention span. Anything longer and many would stop reading the article. Moreover, I believe this article is read by large number of younger audience so I believe that the article should be slightly lower than 32 kg. At 72 kb the article is in serious trobule. My "subjective" opinion is that too many esotoric topics are discussed in details. Unfortunately, what is or what is not "esotric" topic is causing some sectarian disagreement, which is another reason I gave up and came here. FWBOarticle


 * Weak Remove: Bloat issues compared to daughter articles. Needs copyediting focusing on the denominations confusion. Slightly hasty nomination, but valid. Peace. Metta Bubble 00:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Remove: This article requires (1) a network of sub-articles that will take the load off, and (2) extensive re-editing to raise upto FA standards. As this will take time and effort, I strongly advocate a re-nomination. Rama&#39;s Arrow 18:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: Yes, the article requires sub-articles - and indeed there are many already. Unfortunately (but understandably) it is often edited by relatively new editors who are interested in, or practitioners of, Buddhism - and feel that they have something necessary to add. However IMO, as a general rule, the quality of the article remains high. (20040302 12:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC))


 * Remove - Too much bloat and too little development of daughter articles. --mav 22:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove. WP:POINT has nothing to do with whether the article meets Featured standards currently; reprimand the nominator if he's truly "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point", but it's true either way that this article needs major reworking, and removing FA is a fantastic way to facilitate that. -Silence 22:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm making a point. But this doesn't fall into "don't-make-a-point" in wikipedia.  You are not allowed to "edit" to make a point. FA removal nomination has zero impact to editorial process. Moreover, I declared in the talk page that I will not make edit until the nomination process is settled. FWBOarticle


 * Keep. The article is long but I see nothing to warrant removing its FA status.--Alabamaboy 17:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is true that the article is very long, but it is very well referenced, and I see no reason to remove its current featured article status. It is one of the best religion-related articles. Carioca 01:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove For a 71 kb article, only 4 inline citations? Lead is too long, due to WP:LEAD. Rest of my objections are already stated in the "remove"s above. AndyZ 01:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, for above reasons. - Mailer Diablo 01:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)