Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mysore/archive1

Mysore

Review commentary

Featured article candidates/Mysore

Notified: Amarrg, Dineshkannambadi, IMpbt, Abhishek19288, Wikiproject India, WikiProject Cities, WP Karnataka

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been over 4 years since this article was featured and drastic changes in FAC have been brought about in the interim period Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 16:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick glance and found the following issues with the article

The lead does not summarize the civic administration, Demographics, Business and Economy, Education and Media sections.
There are large chunks of unsourced texts, particularly, the first paragraph of "History" section, the first paragraph of "Business and Economy" section, the last paragraph of "Education" section, the last paragraph of "Tourism" section and whole of the section on "Information Technology".-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 16:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have requested that the nominator complete the notifications of involved projects. Dana boomer (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since Dinesh is long gone, notifications to WikiProjects listed on the article talk page are needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC with a problematic note: nothing whatsoever has been done to improve the deficiencies since this nomination was listed, so it should Move to FARC. However, it was once considered an abuse of FAR process to overtax editors working in a particular area, and it was customary to avoid having multiple FARs in the same area up at the same time, since that pretty much guarantees editors who work in that area won't be able to respond. There are currently THREE Indian city FARs on the page. Bad practice; in the future, nominators should be encouraged to wait a few weeks if editors in a given area are already hard at work on saving one star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment One thing was done, 8 days after the nomination the appropriate wikiproject was notified.
- It's very difficult to edit articles on South Asia on en.wiki. It's probably safest (as in least likely to send packing editors with knowledge of South Asia) to demote it.
- I was able to easily fix some listed problems on today's main page article, Vijayanagara Empire. The only hard part was finding the prior editor's incorrect fixes. How many editors can make those fixes quickly? I'm okay with referencing things, but I often need titles translated to add the references, and other editors are very impatient. I work full time. I can't fix a major article in 5 days. This requires library research, not on-line research. Last time I spent the time to check out books, I got dissed before I could add the sources.
- Kolkata, Chennai, Mysore are unlikely to tax the same group of editors, though. Pseudofusulina (talk) 06:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include references and MOS compliance (specifically WP:LEAD). Dana boomer (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Sandy has mentioned above, three Indian city articles are in FARC simultaneously. This is difficult for editors. Although Pseudofusulina told that "Kolkata, Chennai, Mysore are unlikely to tax the same group of editors, though.", unfortunately that is partially true. So, my request would be to allow significantly longer time in this case. I have started working on this article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The review can be extended, if you are planning to work on it. If you wouldn't mind, please drop an update of your progress here every few days and let us know when you are ready for reviewers to come back in and re-check the article. Dana boomer (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update 1. Lead expanded. Large chunks of text that were completely unsourced (as mentioned in the FAR proposal) have either been removed (as those were undue), or provided with references.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am planning to work on it as well since I had written major chunks of this article and had participated in the FA review. Thanks - ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 16:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]