Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mohanlal/archive1

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 1 August 2021 [1].

Mohanlal edit

Notified: Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla, Pachu Kannan, WikiProject Kerala, [diff for talk page notification]

I am nominating this featured article for review because, Mohanlal is a very important Personality in Kerala, India Shaji issac (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a misplaced FAC. @WP:FAR coordinators: - article in question is not an FA. Hog Farm _Talk 09:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose uncited text, ref formatting issues (missing the publisher), citing blogspot, are the most visible issues. (t · c) buidhe 10:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A very vaguely worded oppose. We need examples of these issues, a sense of how frequent they are, and why it is clear that they cannot be fixed within the purview of FAC. I know nothing about the topic nor have any interest in it, but am perplexed by the indifferent dismissal, especially when the FAC regulars park half-baked articles that are improved over months. Why should we take your word for it? An oppose should demonstrate at least a tenth of the rigor that is being asked for in the article. Pretty shameful. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal. Hi Shaji, thanks for your interest in getting this article promoted. Featured articles are decided not based on whether they are important, but whether they meet the FA criteria. Unfortunately at this point this article does not. I would suggest if you're eager to improve the article that you seek a peer review to provide suggestions on how to approach that. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another insouciant oppose, if a little more polite. Please elaborate with examples, not just with pieties. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest F&F stops badgering. It's pretty clear when you have unreferenced statements like ...:
"Mohanlal did the lead role in the multi-starrer blockbuster"

"where he uses standard Indian political gimmicks to win the election in the USA."

"The film dealt with the discrimination against women."

"The revenge thriller Kanal was his last in the year. It also received mixed reviews from critics."

"Mohanlal was the captain of the Kerala Strikers team in the Celebrity Cricket League (CCL) held in 2012 and 2013."

" He has often stated that the turn of events in his life, including his film career, was accidental"

"likes to read Osho, J. Krishnamurti, Aurobindo and Ramana Maharshi."

... that this needs a peer review as a minimum, and its nomination here is premature in extremis. It took two minutes to find those bare issues, a thorough review is required, including grammar and markup, before this is ready for FAC. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for grammar, the adverbial phrase is more commonly "at the minimum" or "at a minimum." (abbreviated sometimes as min. OED: min, n.4, adj.2, and adv: = minimum n. and adj. Also as adv.: at the minimum. 1943 P. Larkin Let. 16 Sept. in Sel. Lett. (1992) 70 Salary £260 (The Admiralty had been £300 plus bonus)..min.

If you are attempting to use "as a minimum" grammatically, you better have something after it: "as a minimum requirement," "as a minimum standard," ...

I think this kind of response is why you're not taken seriously any more. You're reviewing my review. Pathetic. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2819 (words)/7198 (total prose size) = two fifths. So you found your first example two-fifths of your way through the article. Do you have something a little earlier that would justify "premature In extremis" (in extremis: in the last agonies of death; at the very point of death;) which even pediatric ER doctors use with caution if they use it at all.
Please tell me all of you: how many uncited sentences are there in the article and what proportion do they constitute? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would take a line-by-line spotcheck to provide an exact figure, because in addition to the material visibly lacking citations (examples of which TRM has pointed out), there are also instances where a citation is provided but does not adequately support the material. For example, in the first body section we see "He had an elder brother named Pyarelal (died in 2000, during a military exercise)." (the source provided supports that he had a brother, but not their order nor the brother's death); "Mohanlal's first role was as a sixth grader for a stage play called Computer Boy, in which he played a ninety-year-old man" (source supports that he was in that play in sixth standard but not what role he played); and "During 1977 and 1978 he was the Kerala state wrestling champion" (source indicates that he was "a Kushti champion at the Veerakerala Gymkhana in the year 1978" and doesn't mention 1977). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, F&F seems adept at attempting to review the reviews, but contributes not much more here. Such a shame. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is odd. It's a quick-fail here at FAC yet F&F is railing against all of us who are suggesting that it needs more. In the meantime, I'm seeing nothing useful from F&F. Suggest this is closed down and F&F is given advice from those who know them...... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I do not mean to pile on this review, but I agree with the above opposition arguments. There are uncited sentences throughout the article and that is a major issue. I agree with Nikkimaria that a peer review would be the better place for this article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How very strange. Arrogant judgments are being delivered by people who have not bothered to suggest once to the nominator that they try to find the citations. How are they able to divine rank incompetence in this instance, but fail to do so when their familiars bring their limping permutations on tired themes? No worries, just making sure that nothing has changed in Lotusland. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Arrogant judgments" and "not bothered to suggest once to the nominator that they try to find the citations" well, there you go. And this nomination ends here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I suggest that someone has a discussion with F&F about this kind of disruptive behaviour before it gets to ANI. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good work F&F on not helping but guaranteeing this nomination was sunk. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Coord note -- it isn't a requirement for reviewers to list every issue in a nomination to determine that the article is underprepared and should be improved outside the FAC process; as suggested above, Peer Review should be the next venue after that, before considering a re-nom here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.