Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur/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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:00, 13 September 2010 [1].

Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur edit

Review commentary edit

Featured article candidates/Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur

Featured article review/Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur/archive1

Notified: Ambuj.Saxena, India noticeboard, Universities WP

This is a 2006 FAR that has not been reviewed since it's promotion. The problems here are quite similar to those found in the Indian Institutes of Technology article, currently at FARC. Large unsourced sections, including statistics and opinion and several dead links, leaving other areas effectively unsourced are major problems. Poor prose, poorly updated statistics and multiple dab links are also issues. Dana boomer (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section by section analysis:
History

Quotation shouldn't be in curly quote thingies.

Admissions and Academics

First paragraph is kinda short. Can it be integrated?
LAOTSE and 5 year integrated Master of Science are redlinked. Are either important enough for articles?

Sponsored research

Ministry of Information Technology is redlinked. Is it important enough for an article?

Institutes and departments

One sentence section, no sources. Also uses "recently established" which is a vague term.

Festivals

"Breathe" links to a dab page.
Should Led Zeppelica be linked?
Use of "etc." is a copout. There should be no reason to use "etc." in article text.
Last two paragraphs should be combined.

Student organizations

Wow, this is a mess. Paragraphs are all bunched up; third-party links are within the text; reads almost like a copyvio. At the least, words like "has been instrumental in the establishment…" should be avoided.

Alumni

This is where the article really comes apart. From ad-like tone such as "maintained a warm rapport with its alumni" to a barrage of several short

sections and improperly formatted refs (period, followed by footnote, followed by comma — what the heck?!), it neds a total rewrite.

References

Many references are missing author credits. Several more are formatted as bare URLs.

The content is mostly there, but it would need a much tighter copy-edit, removal of weasel words and ad-like prose, better referencing and a complete overhaul of everything from "Student Organizations" downward. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TPH, I'm not exactly sure why you're asking for references in some of the areas you are. Perhaps you could explain further? Especially areas like the administration section. Remember that WP:WIAFA doesn't call for everything to be sourced, just that which is appropriate, and links to WP:When to cite, which says that quotations, exceptional claims, contentious BLP info, and "Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work" need to be referenced. I honestly don't see what in the unreferenced parts of the administration section fall into these categories. I would be more inclined to challenge areas such as the last paragraph of the Festivals section, which includes statistics ("3000 teams") or the section on Entrepreneurship Cell, which includes what I would consider to be exceptional claims, ("E-Cell has been instrumental in the establishment..."). Asking for everything to be referenced is not part of the FA criteria, and when experienced editors do it it provides a bad example for newer editors/reviewers. Dana boomer (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn the citation requests for now and will work on [citation needed]ing what I think need [citation needed]ing. Also, one thing I didn't catch last time is this clunky paragraph: "The senate controls and approves the curriculum, courses, examinations and results, and appoints committees to look into specific academic matters. The teaching, training and research activities of the institute are periodically reviewed by the senate to maintain educational standards. The director of IIT Kharagpur is the ex officio chairman of the senate." Three sentences in a row beginning with "the" = bad. I also raised some issues on the Alumni section here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GrapedApe's review

External links in the infobox should be removed.
I also don't think the "Deputy Director" is really worth having in the infobox
The rankings in the lead should be moved to the main body of the article.
- --GrapedApe (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern include sourcing, prose and neutrality YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per review by Dana, TPH, and GrapedApe. Above those issues are not addressed. JJ98 (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist none of my issues were addressed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, significant FA criteria concerns, above issues have not been addressed. -- Cirt (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, nothing has happened since the review began. Dana boomer (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.