The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.

Bicholim conflict[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because after much work I believe it has reached its maximum potential. It is not a very huge event and doesn't have more than a few chapters in literature based on it but I've still created the article to quite a good size. AbA 07:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - just opened it up and can say straightawy looks promising but would be alot better if individual page refs were reffed rather than umpteen identical refs for book. Also the caption of the chruch in goa image - is this a significant church? If so should say. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this has several links to "Vasco da Gama" that link to the person, when I presume the place is meant.--Grahamec 13:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- avoid "multiple use" footnotes. A single footnote used for "a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv bw bx by bz ca cb cc cd ce cf cg ch ci cj ck cl cm cn co cp cq cr cs ct cu cv cw" is not useful. ((page number)). Also, sourcing half of the article's statements to a book published with Voice of India, a self-declared propaganda outfit, does not exactly bode well for npov (even though, of course, the facts referenced to that book may be absolutely correct, I have no way of knowing); especially statements like The inquisitors had great influence in Portuguese Goa's administration in those times and conducting negotiations with the largely Hindu Maratha Empire would be considered a betrayal to the cause — that's perfectly plausible for the period, but you would still prefer to get a reference somewhat more precise than an entire book. dab (𒁳) 09:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Dbachmann. The footnotes need to be fixed, and a new set of NPOV sources should be used in the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definetly have to agree here. If the references are dividied out by page and a few better NPOV sources can be found, then there won't be any objections.Cromdog 01:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.