Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hinduism

Hinduism

 * No longer a featured article

I am regretfully nominating this article for FARC. It fails the FA criteria in many ways: * Prose quality degraded. Again, lot of material has been added over the months with very inconsistent quality. For example, Dualism section has statements like "Bhakti is the only way for liberation." What does that mean? Why is it stated in a factual manner? --Blacksun 15:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Lack of Wiklinking. A quick glance at the article will show scores of religous terms that are used without any sort of wiklinking.  Example: Tantra section has terms like 'Pranayam', 'Yantra', etc. without wikilinking.  This problem is repeated in other sections.
 * Lack of quality references. I do not see a single reference in "Origins of Hinduism" section.  Criticism section has atleast two statements that requires citation.  I can keep going - basically, people are more interested in adding information pertaining to their view on the matter without worrying about scholarly aspect of the article.  At the time of nominating, the articles reference section is vandalized (has 400+ references).  However, in its normal form it seriously lacks good referencing.
 * Incorrect referencing. The reference by Vanita R. should not even be in the article anymore because all the text that was pertaining to that reference is (for some mysterious reason) no longer present in the article. I know this because I was the one who had read that journal article and added the relevant text during the previous FARC. This makes me wonder how many other references are present in the bibliography but without the relevant text?
 * *Strong Keep. This article survived a FARC vote in March 2006 (see this link, since that FARC archive has been deleted in the creation of this new FARC). The article also plenty of references and I don't see the "lack of Wikilinking" refered to above. While it would be nice for more of the references to be in the inline style, that is a minor issue and not worthy of removal.--Alabamaboy 15:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I gave some examples for the wikilinking not present in the article. If you did not see it, I would suggest using "Find" option in your browser. I have also added fact tag next to the most obvious lack of references. Also, the article in its present form is very different than what it was in March after rejection of FARC.  I should know it.  Also, I may have deleted the archive by mistake while creating this.  I apologize in that case. --Blacksun 15:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Its interesting to note that Blacksun was one of the strongest defenders in the last FARC. Would like to know why not improve the article to its previous self than nominate here... -- Lost 15:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Response I have gone back to it but it just gets reverted within few days. I have asked for help on various project pages too.  Eventually I have came to realize that maybe what it needs is start from scratch.  Maybe I am wrong - which is fine as long as it gets the attention that I think it needs. --Blacksun 16:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that about Blacksun and it really adds to what he/she says about the article. However, I'm just not comfortable with reverting for the reasons stated by Blacksun (references, prose quality, and so on). That said, the article does seem to be suffering from a lot of editorial conflict and, as a result, I'm not comfortable with the accuracy of some sections of the article. If someone could point out some instances where the article is not accurate, I'd be willing to reconsider my vote.--Alabamaboy 16:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying. And trust me, I will be happy if the FARC fails based on improvements done and useful criticism received.  Some editors have already started working on many of the issues that I mentioned and have been raised on talk pages since the FARC.  It is unfortunate that sometimes it takes a FARC to ignite community response.  I will go through and add more examples of what I think needs fixing.  --Blacksun 04:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I just went through the article again - got rid of some text that was suffering from lack of wikilinking and added a whole lot of citaction needed tags.  I do not think any of these citation needed tags are trivial.  I also believe strongly that the article would never be granted a FA status without these citations.  If someone actually bothers to do proper research to rectify these (instead of finding some random websites) then I have no issues with the article.  One of the things that was silently agreed during the previous FARC was that people will improve the citation quality in the article.  However, as soon as FARC was dealt with some editors chose to redo much of the text and ignore the citation requirement much less improve the existing ones.  In fact, much of the existing cites were made useless.  --Blacksun 20:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delist. After going through the references, as Blacksun suggested, I am seriously concerned about their reliability. While I still think this is a good article, it doesn't meet the FA criteria so I'm changing my vote.--Alabamaboy 18:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delist. Article is a mess and needs serious refactoring to bring some brevity. Too many links to subarticles. For instance, section "Hindu sacred texts" should be four paragraphs with links to the more detailed articles. Many other problems, e.g. four "citation needed" tags, too many for an FA. All your problems will go away if you shorten the article considerably to keep it manageable. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Same as Alabanaboy. Issues raised are not very serious and can be corrected easily, if any. I have already provided three references. so, no there are not four "citation needed" tags anymore.- Holy Ganga  talk 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work - I have added about eight more tags that I believe require citations. Please go through it when you get time.  --Blacksun 14:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am working on it. Regards, - Holy Ganga talk 15:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delist. As per Blacksun and Samsara. Article is unstructured and reads like a memorandum of POVs. How is Taoism and Zoroastrianism related to Hinduism? Anwar 19:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about whether you know this...but when you vote on an FARC you must at least provide us with something to fix the article with...thus can you please tell us where the structure displeases you and where the POVs are?  Noble eagle  (Talk)  23:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Stating agreement with previous comments is perfectly acceptable. In fact, it is conventional to reply in this way to indicate agreement. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Except that he does it on all India related articles. I am not flattered to see him agreeing with me because I suspect our intentions are far from being parallel.  --Blacksun 20:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't misunderstand me, it's just that I suspect Anwar hasn't even read the entire article before voting. However, I could be wrong...  Noble eagle  (Talk)  05:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep A lot of FAs promoted before 2005 have developed plenty of issues because of rising standards. The issues must be resolved using WP:FAR.I disapprove of going to FARC the moment someone notices a series of problems - there needs to be more emphasis on upgrading FAs, or we'll keep losing a bunch of FAs each year. Editors must be given a few weeks to repair this article. Rama&#39;s Arrow 03:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A) it has nothing to do with when it was promoted or not promoted. Most of the information in the article has been added in past 5 months. B) Their has been a series of attempts made over the past few months in the talk pages.  This is not something that was done on a whim.  I have not seen any editor try to address these issues in months.  You are a smart guy who has written many FA articles - do you believe this is FA quality in its current form?  I am willing to take back my objections if you think you can address the issues in appropriate time.  This article really needs work done by an editor like you. --Blacksun 03:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve Per Rama's Arrow -- emphasis should be on maintaining quality rather than on removing the FA tag -- how exactly does the latter help the article, or indeed the Wikipedia project?? I also object to the "you are a smart guy" comment. That editor's FA-article-building work has been constructive, which is more than can be said about this effort. Anyway, herz hoping that this exercise will rally interest and result in improvements being effected. ImpuMozhi 01:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ?? what exactly are you objecting? I definitely meant what I said - that I respect his capabalities and if he were to tell me that he is going to work on the article, I would withdraw my nomination immediately.  And regards to everything else you have said, their has been very little improvement done till now.  It is not the criteria of FA tag to "help" the article.  If the article does not meet the stringent requirements it should not be FA.  Go through the citations in the note and tell me if they are quality citations.  Respond to the issues raised instead of talking about other things. --Blacksun 06:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And I think that the last FARC was in many regards a "Keep and Improve" vote. That was what more than two months ago? Why is it going to be different this time? Bandaid solutions like googling and using the first link as a citation will not work. --Blacksun 08:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve It's on my watchlist now and (when I get back to constant editing on Wiki after my short break) I'll keep an eye on the history to stop vandalism from seeping in. It's an article of quite large proportions, very informative too, I think the issues mentioned by Blacksun can be fixed. Just give it a week or two...  Noble eagle  (Talk)  05:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove and rework As per supporters of removal. Article desperately needs a thorough renovation. Amir85 11:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove and improve as above --K a s h Talk 17:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Status This needs closing but hasn't received comments in twelve days. Any last comments from people about whether concerns have been addressed? Marskell 10:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No - the concerns regarding references still remain. I am not sure if anyone is working on them or not.  Have not seen much movement.  --Blacksun 03:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delist I have waited as long as possible before voting, hoping to allow time for the references to be reworked. Unfortunately, it hasn't happened. I respect and understand the argument about changing standards, but there should be an attempt to upgrade to and maintain current standards, and references are all too important. I also find the Table of Contents overwhelming (3c).  Sandy 19:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove, sadly. I'm surprised that the contributors haven't adequately addressed the problems raised by the reviewers, given the time that this article has been in FAR. And I must throw my hat in the ring, too, in relation to Criterion 2a. There's an air of disorganisation about the prose, even on the sentence level. It fails the Criterion by a long shot, not just by a little. Let's look at the lead, which doesn't fill me with confidence.


 * Hinduism (Sanskrit - Hindū Dharma, also known as Sanātana (eternal) Dharma and Vaidika (Vedic) Dharma) is a religion that was born out of the ancient Aryan teachings of the Vedas. However it must be noted that Hinduism does not have one main holy book and the Vedas were not the only teachings to have influenced the religion. There is also an extremely large amount of other writings that have contributed to forming what is now known as Hinduism. It is the oldest existent religion in the world[1][2]. The term Hinduism is heterogeneous, as Hinduism consists of several schools of thought. It encompasses many religious rituals that widely vary in practice, as well as many diverse sects and philosophies. Many Hindus, influenced by Advaita philosophy, venerate an array of deities, considering them manifestations of the one supreme monistic Cosmic Spirit, Brahman, while many others focus on a singular concept of Brahman (God), as in Vaishnavism, Saivism and Shaktism.[3]


 * Hinduism is the third largest religion in the world, with approximately 900 million adherents (2005 figure), of whom approximately 890 million live in India.[4]


 * Now, why "however" at the start of the second sentence? Is the next clause surprising or contrary to what has just been said? No. This kind of slip up makes it hard to read, not the sparkling, brilliant prose that we expect for an article that we can show off as "among our best".
 * Please don't tell our readers what they must note. Allow them to judge that.
 * Do you mean "unlike other major religions, Hinduism does not have one main holy book"? The second clause in that sentence doesn't flow logically from this. And if you're going to tell us that the Vedas were not the only influence, why leave a rag-tag hanging here? Better not to beg the question until the body of the text.
 * An "amount" of writings is ungrammatical. "Body" or "corpus? "What is now known as Hinduism" begs questions of how it might have been in the past compared with modern Hinduism. Do you want to raise this issue right now, without explaining it?
 * "Existent"—better as "extant".
 * "The term Hinduism is heterogeneous, as Hinduism consists of several schools of thought." Why not remove all but the last seven words?
 * "many religious rituals that widely vary in practice"—well, a ritual is a practice, so why tell us? The order of "widely vary" should be reversed.
 * "as well as"—sigh, this is the marked version of "and". You don't want to highlight the addition here, surely.
 * "... Brahman, while many others ..."—"while" is a poor back-connector. Why not: "Brahman; many others"?

In its current state, the article can't possibly be retained as "one of our best". I'm sure that we'd all like to see it thoroughly worked through and resubmitted to the FAC room. Tony 05:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

i realise that there are some absolute issues in it being a featured article. mainly because, to say, hinduism encompasses everything. there is not a practice in world that you dont find in hinduism. including beef eating and cannibalism (by aghori sadhus, subsect of shaivites).

its also an evolving religion, with new rituals and practices relevant in current time and space, which make it even harder for it to be FA.

but i still strongly feel that it can be regarded as an A rated article. but before that i would like to have more views on this by prominent users

nids 04:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)