Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Persian literature/archive1
It's a well-written and comprehensive article about the Persian literature, and - right now - probably the best article on Persian literature available in the www. Tājik 02:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Object Not enough refs, huge areas don't have one and the ones you have are not consistently formatted. Full dates, ex March 13, 2006, should be wikilinked. Rlevse 03:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Object Not well cited, suggest a stint at peer review until issues are addressed (the peer review received no comments). Sandy (Talk) 17:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Object per above problems and:
- the 'influence' section is largely anecodotal. Nietzsche is cited, although no reason is given (just because a character is named Zoroaster? I'm sure lots of books fit that description). It really needs to be rewritten and referenced.
- too many red links for literary critics
- too many lists--satire should be a paragraph and in it the most important people should be touched upon. A list can go in the sub-article not this overview.
- Images like Image:Shahrokh Meskoob.jpg need to be sourced before we can trust their copyright tags. and WP:FUC are needed for images like Image:Dehkhoda book cover.gif
- These little things all need to be done first--and then it can be brought back to FAC. gren グレン 07:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Object per above, also too many blue links in the article, names linked over and over again, instead of just the first time, or when particularlaly relevant, thereby making the article hard to read, when the purpose of blue linking to other articles is to direct the interested reader to more information, not make the article look bruised (black and blue mess).
- Excessive linking: ""Excessive" is more than once for the same term, in a line or a paragraph, because in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly then appear needlessly on the viewer's screen. Remember, the purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at the point(s) where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to needing more information;" It is not to emphasize the importance of some subject, and actually fails in that by appearing cluttered and poorly copedited instead. In the lead paragraph alone "Central Asia" and "Persian" are both linked twice. The entire article is like this. See WP:relevant links & WP:MOS (links). KP Botany 20:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
