Wikipedia:Featured article review/Buddhist art/archive2


 * 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 16:36, 18 March 2007.

Review commentary

 * Messages left at PHG, Grenavitar, Pharos, and WikiProject Buddhism. Green451 18:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This article has several grammatical errors and less-than-brilliant prose (failing FA criteria 1a), a complete lack of inline citations and several unreferenced facts (failing 1c), and tries to cover too many topics in one article (failing 4). This article underwent a previous review about a year ago and was kept. Unless the criteria has changed since then, the involved parties in that review didn't seem to notice the lack of inline citations. Green451 18:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am by no means an expert about Buddhist art but looking at the sources (even if I include "further reading" under that category) I am not convinced that this article uses anything authoritative. I know this is not a perfect process, but searching Google books you find many books specifically on the subject of Buddhist art--many are not from academic publishers but some are.  The writing is not very good in some places--often because sentences seem to just be throwing out facts rather than weaving an explanation of Buddhist art.  Image sourcing problems: Image:Prajnaparamita Java.jpg is from Indische Kunst (museum?) in 1925... it gives no author but claims to be PD by virtue of author+70.  The other images seem fine, but their pages ideally should be cleaned up making their copyright / source available at a glance.  But, the most apparent problem is no real citation system.  I disagreed on my FAR that inline citations alone aren't a reason for removal--but, I don't see how that's the only problem.


 * It will take a lot of work and some editors who know the subject and the literature. To keep this as an FA it first needs everything to be sourced--there is no point in cleaning up the language when it could easily have to be changed in light of new facts. gren グレン 12:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Move to FARC &mdash; little work has been done in the two week period. &mdash; Deckiller 22:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * ''Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), referencing (1c), and scope (4). Marskell 14:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 01:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove Just read a snippet of it, and it is in need of much work.Zeus1234 01:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove. Although I noticed that User:Indon has converted some of the external links into citations, there still aren't enough citations.  Because of that, and due to an almost complete lack of work in other areas, I can't change my opinion. Green451 16:21, 9 March 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.