Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indian Institutes of Technology/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 06:16, 30 August 2010 [1].

Indian Institutes of Technology edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Ambuj.Saxena, Iitmsriram, Lostintherush, India Noticeboard, WP Universities

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is an FA that hasn't been reviewed since shortly after its promotion in 2006, and which falls short in the realms of referencing and prose. The prose in many areas is cringe-worthy, including "From the academic year 2010-2011 institute will function from" and "Permanent campus...spread over 520 acres is under construction", both from the first section. There are many unsourced spots, some of which are already marked by cn tags. Many of these areas include statistics that at least need a reference so that the reader knows what year the data was drawn from. There are also many dead links, references missing information such as publishers and access dates (for websites) and inconsistent reference/punctuation placement. Dana boomer (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the terrible prose; it reads a lot like a poor translation.

Common Entrance Examination for Design and LAOTSE are both redlinked. Are either notable enough for articles, or should they be mentioned at all?
Ditto the redlinks under the Technical and Cultural Festivals section. Also, that section is rather lacking in sources.
"Criticism" section should probably be re-titled.
"However, and rather fortunately, this trend has been reversed somewhat -- and is dubbed the reverse brain drain -- as hundreds of IIT graduates" — needs a more netural rephrase.
Second paragraph of "Alumni" is totally unsourced.
Another problem I see is that there are way too many primary sources.
Is TopUniversities a reliable source?

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Were these issues brought up on the talk page first before being brought to FAR? Lambanog (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, and this is not a requirement for FAR. Any old FA (especially those 2006 and older) with valid, unresolved tags in place for over a year is ripe for a FAR. Is there a reason that you asked this on several FARs when you could have easily checked for yourself, or, if you thought a guideline was being breached, asked a general question on the FAR talk page? Dana boomer (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standard operating procedure for improving articles is via edits to the article and comments on the talk page. If nothing else it is a courtesy to the editors. True in the current FAR process editors are informed too—when a FAR is already about to commence or underway. It can still give the feeling the article was suddenly set upon. It is the difference between an unannounced and previously scheduled audit; yet I see little gained from the surprise. I ask because I may have missed something on the talk page or the rationale of the nominator. The articles I've made the comment on likely have sufficient followings or active enough talk pages that a comment on them might have been useful. By the way the percentage of successful and unsuccessful FARs should also be made prominent to all participants. Editors should be made aware of the fact that FAR has a greater than 50% delist rate from the outset. FAR can be misleading to those unfamiliar with it. Current documentation is deficient. Lambanog (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the WikiProjects flagrantly don't care. FAR is softer than FAC due to lack of biters, and any wikiprojcet which cares has 80%+ success easily YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sister FA of this article YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern are prose, sourcing and inconsistent style YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist for FA criteria concerns, above those issues not addressed. JJ98 (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above; nobody's working to address the concerns. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Nothing's happening. Dana boomer (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Per Dana's, TPH's and Jj98's comments; there has been nothing happening at all. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:22, 22 August 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.