Wikipedia:Featured article review/British East India Company/archive1

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 11:59, 17 February 2007.

British East India Company edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at Singapore, India, Chancemill, Henry Flower, Jengod. Jeffpw 09:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very lacking, and when it is cited, has a mixture of citation styles. A large portion is uncited, while others have been called "POV" and some cited for not viewing it from a world standpoint. Dark jedi requiem 05:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - what a mess! Full of POV, neutrality, disputed, etc. tags by an anon editor: [1], but no messages left in the talk page. I removed the "In Popular Culture" section, because it is totally unsourced and not directly related with the subject (PS2 games, etc.). I moved also 2 flags into Flags section. As a glance,

The lead is too short to summarize the article,
Footholds in India section is disputed. Somebody with Indian background should take a look to give balance views.
Opium trade section is also tagged with neutrality and accuracy. Now this is for somebody with China history.
Stubby and listy "Ships" section and poor "East India Company Records" section. These two sections were added after the article was featured.
Too many see also items. Should be merged into the main text.
Lack of inline citations, there are some citations needed tags and I found some statements/facts are unsourced. Yes, there are some ext. links in the main article, but some ext. links have been there since the article was featured: [2], how come?

I'll try to help, but can't promise of getting sources. — Indon (reply) — 17:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are POV (1d), insufficient citations (1c), stub sections and LEAD (2). Marskell 07:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Insufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 22:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, article hasn't progressed since FAR nomination. --Peta 00:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, I would say that a lot of works should be done for this article to gain FA status. A major concern is its neutrality, so it will need a total rehaul of the sourcing and rewriting. Bringing it back to FAC would be a good idea. — Indon (reply) — 08:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above — little work done, and it requires a lot of work. — Deckill er 02:03, 16 February 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.