Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indian architecture/archive1

Indian architecture edit

This article is fascinating, is well laid out, concise, beautifully illustrated, comprehensive, and adheres to all Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. It represents important cultural themes that will broaden the awareness of most readers. I feel that this article is representative of the quality and diversity that Wikipedia stands for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acooley (talk • contribs)

Oppose no references. Sandy 13:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no references, inadequate lead. Please check the featured article criteria before nominating articles. Henry ^Flower 13:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. No references+Disproportional weightage to certain topics. Too many more issues. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No references. IMO, move to PR.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As above. Anwar 20:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to no references and an inadequate lead. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons stated above. Should we move it to PR per Dwaipayan? DVD+ R/W 22:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no chance for FA I don't think, so perhaps this should simply become a Peer Review like Dwaipayanc said. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. I had looked up this article a few months back and I was as disappointed with it as I am disappointed with architecture in India. A lot needs to be done, and I don't think a peer review will help for the most important one, which is that it says just three sentences about modern Indian architecture. That cannot be rectified by a copyedit. An expert Indian architect needs to fix this. — Ravikiran 09:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As a matter of principle I would oppose any unsigned nomination by an anon. But this article does mark a first of sorts ... an FAC on India or something related to it that is nowhere near ready for prime time (Was the nominator a mischief-making Pakistani?) Daniel Case 01:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, at first glance uncited and too short. Not comprehensive. That's without going into the details.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 03:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The biggest showstopper for me are the references. Without references, I can't pledge my support, no matter how good the article. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 10:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]