Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indian Railways/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 by Joelr31 14:39, 24 January 2009.

Review commentary

 * Notified: WP Business, WP India, WP Trains, User:Nichalp, User:Merits4, User:Brhaspati.

It doesn't meet the featured article criteria. --Obsolete.fax (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For future reference, Obsolete.fax, please could you cite specific areas of the featured article criteria that you believe an article has failed. In my opinion, this article fails 1c of the featured article criteria, which states that the claims of an article are "are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate".  I believe this because many paragraphs in the article do not have any citations at all, leaving a lot of the article unsourced.  To note, there are only 20 citations in the article at the time of writing.  OpenSeven (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please complete the notifications. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources should be fine (for any queries, see the FAC nom). It needs a copyedit and inline citations to remain a FA. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Other than prose and inline cites, are there any other problems with the text? I will keep this open for suggestions till next week. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not found any other problems with the text. OpenSeven (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Nichalp - I cannot find substantial flaws in the article, but I agree that it could benefit from a copyedit. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 02:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Notice to reviewers : Please mention the objections in bullet point fashion under the section below so that they can be efficiently addressed. -- GP Pande  talk!  08:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Objections
 * Haven't any books been written on the subject? I should think there would be plenty, and books are always preferable to websites as scholarly sources of information. Starting searching your libraries people! indopug (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Improvements
 * Lead of the article has been updated, dubious links removed and copy edit done. If any problems exists with lead paragraph please mention in the above Objections section. -- GP Pande  talk!  08:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Some more sections (as you can see from history of article) have undergone copy edits. -- GP Pande  talk!  17:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the lead, IR has a monopoly on all rail transport in India. However, the Delhi Metro article does not say that it is run by IR (not sure about Calcutta metro). If these are not run by IR, then perhaps 'monopoly' is not the right word. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 21:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Images
 * Image:Indian Railways logo.png needs a non-free use rationale.
 * I think the image correctly carries the copyright information as per "Logo" rules.


 * Image:Burdwan Railway Station-1855.jpg is missing source and author.
 * Removed.


 * I'm not certain who owns the copyright of Image:IR sample ticket.jpg. Is it Indian Railways?
 * Should not be a problem. The copyright status seems correct.


 * The images should be alternated left and right, to prevent poor layout of the page (large white spaces between paragraphs or large white spaces between section headings and the text beneath the heading). DrKiernan (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed a few extra images which seem to have been added recently with no such high importance to article. I will keep working on layout as you said as it gets changed every time some text is added or removed. Thanks for your feedback. -- GP Pande  talk!  17:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Move to FARC, has been up almost a month, still has a lot of uncited hard data, I haven't checked prose or MoS. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sandy could you hold on to it please? I was away for two weeks owing to illness, and then the attacks in Mumbai. I'll look into in after Christmas but before 2009. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We usually grant extensions Nichalp but seeing as how long it will take to work on the article I will move it to FARC and grant the extension there instead. Joelito (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No issues. I have begun work on cleaning the article, but my work will be slow these days. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  10:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are images, prose, and citations Joelito (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The citations are inconsistent and need cleanup. I've placed a tag on top of the article's talk page, and will be working myself to clean up as many citations as possible over the next week. SBC-YPR (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Citations
 * Delist Minimal work, lack of citations, unformatted, cites to other Wikipedia articles, etc.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Nichalp pointed me to this article needing some work. I agree with the FARC reviewer's that it has:
 * (minor) prose and formatting issues and is perhaps too listy especially compared to the version that was originally promoted to FA.
 * Significant lack of inline citations and may even need more/better references.
 * I plan to work on the article over the next few days, and Nichalp plans to work on it post-Christmas. So I request that the review be kept on hold a couple of weeks before the potential delisting decision is made. It would also help if the reviewer's could watchlist the article talk page and provide feedback on the needed and proposed changes there. That will prevent the discussion on the FARC main page from becoming a lengthy mess. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Will look at it once I return from my New Year's break. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  13:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A fellow editor just now made me aware of this discussion. Some material in my library should yield plenty of citations.  I will endeavor to bring the article up to speed with "deliberate haste".Fconaway (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Remove per . Cirt (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove. No progress made in fixing the article's problems. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have left a message on Nichalp's talk page. If he is not willing to or can't work on the article it will be delisted. Joelito (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.