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.
doesn't have criticism section suffers from over all POV, ignores criticism section guidelines comparison with islam christianity articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esmehwp (talk • contribs)
Uh... huh? JuJube 11:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the editor is contesting, and they don't cite the "guidelines" the article "ignores". Wonder if this is in good faith. MARussellPESE 12:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lead needs expansion, it might be a little oversectionalized, other than that at a quick glance I don't see any other MoS issues. I fixed a "didn't" and two section headers that began with "The". Dates look fine, Summary style is employed well, I don't have any knowledge on the subject so I couldn't speak as to content accuracy and/or POV. Quadzilla99 05:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, apparently "The Bab" and "The Convenant" are the way those two are referred to in Bahá'í circles so another user re-inserted them in the section titles. Reviewers should note that. Quadzilla99 14:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a couple of minor things that could be fixed:
"differing from the other traditions only in its relative newness and in the appropriateness of Bahá'u'lláh's teachings to the modern context." Newness just sounds weird to me, a better word could probably be found.
There's a couple of times when things such as "[the faith] is seen as" or『Bahá'ís beliefs are sometimes described as』are without a source, like the second paragraph of the section titled Religion.
There are some constructions that I'd like to see use stronger, more definite language: "Although it concentrates on social and ethical issues as well, some of the Bahá'í Faith's foundational texts might be described as mystical."
"Study circles" section doesn't have any citations.
Since homosexuality is outlawed, maybe the article could use some more coverage of that issue, instead of one sentence mentioning it's outlawed with a link to a subpage discussing the issue.
The Persecution section deals with presecution since 1979, I realize earlier persecution is dealt with in the history section, but maybe some earlier incidents merit mention here. Quadzilla99 15:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have changed the article to address the above suggestions, though the persecution section might be too long now. Thanks for taking the time to look into it. Regards, -- Jeff3000 17:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, instant service! Thanks for addressing those so quick, this should be able to avoid FARC. One more thing to nitpick over, I was actually more unhappy with the weakness of the word "might" in the sentence quoted above, "has been" or "have been" might be better. Quadzilla99 18:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b) and POV (1d).Marskell 03:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments on FARC. Quadzilla99 00:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear I'm keep but as for points for future improvement—the lead could be expanded per WP:LEAD, there a lot of sections but I think they present a logical division; maybe they can be reduced somehow but I don't see how in most cases personally (the two international plans could be combined though maybe), you could condense the multiple refs using the system in Tourette Syndrome, and some of the lists could perhaps be converted into prose (such as the one in the "United Nations" section). But I don't see any of these as major problems; as I said in some instances I personally don't see any other way to present the information. Quadzilla99 00:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All valid complaints already addressed by Jeff3000. JuJube 00:47, 21 May 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.
