- 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 14:33, 16 July 2009 [1].
- Notified: Kerala discussion board, User:Saravask, User:Salih and more.
This is a rather high level Kerala FAR discussion. I'm sorry.
Lead section
1 (c) issue at the first paragraph, since Kerala is not bordered by the Arabian sea in the east, but the Laccadive Sea.
1 (a) and 1 (c) poorly written summary of the history in the lead section. There is only one primary source, which seems to be a very brief and vage one. There should be more clear sources to support these views, hence there is also a
1 (d) issue: The neutrality of this view is debatable. A few Keralite groups are credited to have formed the language of the state. This has to be clearly sourced by reputed scholars.
1 (a) issue with the term "Early contacts with Europeans". This looks pretty misplaced, because Romans and Greeks, which are mentioned earlier, are also Europeans.
1 (c) Original research at the last sentence, which says, that it is a "unique" feature of the state. The sources, which are provided, don't state that.
Also there is no mention in the lead, that Kerala became a very successful tourist center, which contributes to Kerala's economy in a big way. An inclusion is not supported by the main contributors.
History section
1 (c) Details of Muziris/Pattanam have not found the way to the article, which I strongly regret, because this was the early history site of Kerala. A reference was made in the lead section, but the history section is completely empty. Early contacts with Babylon and ancient Egypts are not mentioned. Also the first two paragraphs are very poorly sourced, hence another
1 (c) issue.
Subdivision section
1 (a)/4 The city box seems to be too large. A normal box on the right side would be better.
Government and Politics section
1 (a)/4 These sections should be merged into one "Politics" section, since the content in Politics is really small. Generally there should be more information about the history in Kerala politics. Then the section could stay divided.
Education section
2 (c) not a single inline citation in the whole section, accept one.
--Stopthenonsense (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 I've nominated File:School children line Cochin Kerala India.jpg for deletion. File:Kathakali Performance.jpg has no source. No permission for File:KalariPuttara.jpg. DrKiernan (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from the concerns raised above, I think the Education section should be written in WP:SS and provided with some citations. Further I doubt the use of non-free image File:Kannur university-logo.png in this page.
Culture section
2 (c) The section should have more citations.
Media section
Dozens of newspapers are published in Kerala; they are printed in nine major languages. - Please include the exact numbers.
- Name the highest circulating newspaper and cite it.
- There are 17 malayalam channels which makes the countries maximum number in regional language. - Citation needed Amartyabag TALK2ME 01:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, structure, lead, accuracy, neutrality, original reaserch, image copyright. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Some parts are OK, while others are inadequate. There are still unsourced and vague swaths of text, dead links that prevent verification, conversions missing, an external link section that could be pruned. I found the Climate section one of the more disappointing parts of the article. There was very little substance, only random stats ("Daily average high 36.7 °C; low 19.8 °C." is not even a sentence!); there was no flow at all to the section. Parts of the article need updating (why do we care about the 2005–2006 budget). By no means bad, but not FA standard. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist some citations still needed and some statements don't match up with the sources given. For example, it says "Kerala has one of the highest literacy rates (97.0%) among Indian states", which is sourced to http://www.nfhsindia.org/pdf/KE.pdf. However, if you go there it says nothing about that being the highest, nor does it say 97%. The text of the article should also make clear whether the figure, if correct, is adult or child literacy. The figure in the source is 89.9% for ages 6+. DrKiernan (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- UPDATE I cleaned up climate education and merged other pointless sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hometech (talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Better, but there are still factual accuracy issues highlighted by DrKiernan, and I just added ((fact)) tags to parts of the article. Also, this sentence was cut off by a revision: "The west Asian-semitic [15]" Dabomb87 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist since I nominated the article, more and more issues appeared to the surface. At the current state, the quality of Kerala fails to meet the requirements to be excellent. --Stopthenonsense (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
