Wikipedia:Featured article review/India/archive1

India

 * previous FAR
 * previous FAR

There is a lot of edit-warring on this article. It is not stable and not NPOV. --Kaypoh 10:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Could someone check what I've done with article history? Thanks. DrKiernan 12:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * At a glance, it looks good, but I'll check it in more detail later tonight when I run through all of them. (Four noms at once by Kaypoh.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit-warring will not be a problem. If there are problems with this article, stability is not one of them. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 14:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delist - Stability is most certainly a issue. The article is in a constant state of flux precisely because it has content issues. It doesnt have too many problems on the surface, but deep inside it has some very serious issues. A peek into the talk page and its archives will reveal that there are several issues of all kinds with the article. Several editors have raised various concerns ranging from the appropriateness of the image choices to more serious ones like systemic bias on the article. Another serious issue vouched for by various regular observers of the article at various times is that the article has serious WP:OWN problems. Several well meaning editors have been driven away and their edits summarily reverted without any attempt to treat them on merit. Any semblance of sanity on that page at the moment is a result of autocratic action by an admin and is misleading. I've followed the article closely for over a year and I can vouch that it has several deep rooted problems, some of which can only be remedied with rewrites of entire chunks of prose. Sarvagnya 21:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delist- I cant but agree with Sarvagnya. This has become a battle ground for a number of different schools of thought, including (seemingly) inexperienced admins who believe blocking is an acceptable puitive measure. I must also agree with an observation of intellectual dishonesty, with abundant examples of Cherry picking and half-quotations, and cover-arguments (not based on quotations) of references and statistics that casts doubt on the integrity of a handful of editors who hog the article, coupled with their abusive behaviour that has desisted a number of editors, including myself, who wished to contribute to this article. I will also note that in the article, in most cases, although it may raise the threshold of acceptable reference material, has become in most cases a sad abuse of WP:TRUTH and WP:VERIFY. If anything, this article needs a thorough review of WP:OWN, since a number of editors (including myself) have opined in the past that a core group of editors are hogging the article with repeated reverts, edit-warring, trollish abuse, and abusibe mediation threats. The end result has been tha the India article is one of the least informative FA country article I have seen so far.Rueben lys 22:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see the instructions at WP:FAR; Keep or Remove are not declared during the review phase. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * These comments seem to be directed towards the Wikipedians who edit the article, instead of the article itself. Please be address specific concerns with the article. Also, Rueben lys, blocks for edit-warring and 3RR violations are preventative, not punitive. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Instability in the article for whatever reasons, can be grounds for FAR, FARC and eventual delisting. The instability here stems from the reasons I and Rueben state above and which I am sure is shared by many others.  Also,  an article getting owned is a very serious matter.  It means though this is an encyclopedia that anybody can edit.. this article is off limits to all except some.  It is not conducive to healthy editing and the article can never improve and will remain fossilized. Sarvagnya 00:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge the comments regarding instability, but it's best for the FAR process if specific examples of various present problems with the article are presented. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * FAR closed by Joelr31; please discuss on article talk page. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)