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 00:23, 14 April 2009 [1].

Ladakh[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified - User:Deeptrivia (Principal editor & FA nominator), User:BeckyLadakh, User:Ravikiran, WP:INJK, WP:WikiProject Geography of India and WP:IND

This article became an FA in 2006 and has not been reviewed since. The article is not comprehensive as per requirement 1 (b) of FA guidelines. It excludes an appropriately sized mention of the part played out in Ladakh in major conflicts such as the Sino-Indian War, Kargil War and Siachen conflict. The article itself has no mention of Siachen glacier or Saltoro ridge, significant geographical features which are a major point of contention today between two nuclear states, India and Pakistan. The Siachen conflict is the highest fought conflict in the history of the world. A person reading the article will not get any idea that Ladakh is a militarily active area albeit the fact that it does not impact daily life on a day to day basis.

AshLin (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deeptrivia's Comment: These are very valid points that should be addressed, and could easily be addressed. Unfortunately, I won't get a chance to work on this any time soon, but it would be a pity if this otherwise great article is defeatured for the lack of fulfilling some of the guidelines. I hope someone would take this up and improve the article. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to fill in this gap. Help from all is welcome. AshLin (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deficiency has been addressed by me. I recommend that it may now be considered by another reviewer whether it should be FA or not. AshLin (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations and comprehensiveness. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I appreciate AshLin's efforts, but at this point, I believe the article is too far removed from current FA standards. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:15, 7 April 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.