Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of Buddhism/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 by User:Joelr31 11:24, 14 June 2008 [1].
History of Buddhism edit
Review commentary edit
- Notified User:PHG and WikiProject Buddhism.
An FA from '04 that has serious structural issues. Lead is clearly inadequate, numerous one sentence paragraphs, stub sections (including one that's empty) and poorly rationalized ToC. Obviously inadequately referenced and the references provided are not properly formatted. I don't mind working on prose and organization if there's someone else available for sourcing. Marskell (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Marskell. This is an ancient FA, which clearly doesn't have many of the attributes of more recent ones. I personnally won't have much time to devote to its rework, but it may be time for the WikiProject Buddhism community to make a full revamp of it. Best regards. PHG (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I already noted on the talk page of the article itself, there are few citations, & many of the statements in the article are theories, legends or just plain wrong. I support demotion until this is remedied. Peter jackson (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also
underweight on the Greeks. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]- There are two sections, fuller than most of the sections here. They include both Greco-Buddhist art and King Menander. If this is a typo for undue weight, I could see it; but "under weight"? What is omitted? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also
- Yes undue weight. Very much so. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to take accurate, and largely sourced, detail out of an article. Is there a sub-article? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I already noted on the talk page of the article itself, there are few citations, & many of the statements in the article are theories, legends or just plain wrong. I support demotion until this is remedied. Peter jackson (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see this neeting modern FA standards without a lot of work. There is hardly anything on the last 1,000 years, and no section on, and very few mentions of, Tibet, the only culture where Mahayana Buddhism remains dominant. Few mentions of the integration of Buddhism with other religions in China, Japan, Tibet and elsewhere. It might be better to draw a line at some date like 1,000, or 1,200 and just call this the early history. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I regretfully agree that this should be demoted. To add another example to those cited above, the role of Gandharan Buddhism in the development of early Buddhist iconography is essentially absent; a major lacuna. That said, this still offers a good structure around which to improve the treatment. Topic is important and it would be a shame to demote it without a plan for its revival. Eusebeus (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary edit
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are LEAD (2a), structure (4), and citations (1c). Marskell (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per above - uneven coverage, short lead, not enough on important stuff and vice versa. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. I nommed so Joel can close. Nothing happening, unfortunately. Marskell (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.