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 21:12, 19 September 2007.

Sikh[edit]

The article on the Sikhs is now comprehensive enough and NPOV'd, such that i believe that it can be submitted for inspection to receive FA status. All feedback given during this process will aide in making the article better.msp4realmf 02:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, no references for the first three sections... I didn't read the rest but, that definitely needs to be fixed. gren グレン 20:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-referenced the first 3 sections wrt authoritative sources. Thx for you comments.msp4realmf 21:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, blatant POV issues, and plenty of unreferenced material, not to mention the very poor prose. A characteristic example is the history of sikhism section which contains lines like ...the fascist tendencies of the then Indian Prime Minister, Indira Ghandi. Ghandi's policy of instigating ethnic struggles between Sikhs, Hindus and various Sikh sects for political gains... (its spelt "Gandhi", by the way). This article is no way near even the professional standard required of a Good Article, leave alone awarding it Featured Status.

Tommy Stardust 10:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-referenced the article and made the article more stable. Thx for your comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msp4realmf (talk • contribs) 02:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

msp4realmf 04:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm tempted to oppose, but I'll give it a shot to improve. Starting from the beginning, the lead is in no way a comprehensive summary of the entire article and is way too short. For such a long article, you should have at least four full paragraphs. There are issues with several references not being properly formatted, as well; particularly 78-81. I'm confused about the order of sections, as well -- shouldn't the History be first? I also agree with the POV, and see that it's currently semi-protected. Perhaps a peer review would be a better first bet. María (críticame) 13:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment The stretching of some of the pictures in the article's infobox image Image:TheSikhs2.JPG is pretty unacceptable. — brighterorange (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since that image is based on CC images, it is not okay to license it as public domain; there's definitely something (probably correctable) with the license there. — brighterorange (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Poor prose, a cacophony of images, haphazard structure (aesthetically not pleasant), references need date of retrieval (and any other available information such as publisher).--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Must agree with Dwaipayanc, I see the same things as well as POV concerns. Also the article needs cohesive paragraphs and careful balancing based on prioritization of the material. Be careful to think about why there needs to be an article on Sikhs separate from Sikhism. It should quickly be apparent from the lead what different focus the articles have. - Taxman ^Talk 05:24, 18 September 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.