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.
FA from 2006, with 1c issues throughout. Significant amount of unsourced and uncited content in the article, whole paragraphs, subsections, etc. Concerns about comprehensiveness: lots of small subsections, very short paragraphs, and one-sentence-long-paragraphs. Concerns about WP:RS failure, one example includes Banglapedia as a source. 25 or so images used in the article, could use an image review. Also could do with a bit of general copyediting throughout. -- Cirt (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed redundant and extra images from most of the sections, reducing the number of images (including maps) down to 13. Hope this takes care of Cirt's concern about images. Cirt is definitely correct about the previous status ... 25 images is too much for an article. Hope the current number (which includes maps) is ok. --Ragib (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged couple of one-line-paragraphs with appropriate larger paragraphs downing the number of such issues just one. I'll try to expand the remaining later. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs)12:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have copy-edited the Demographics section and corrected a number of links. I don't see the problem with citing Banglapedia, a highly academic work. Dejo (talk)
Thanks for the explanation. I will try to replace the Banglapedia refs with references to original sources of info. --Ragib (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just my two cents: let's not be too hasty about converting those references, unless there is really a superior alternative. Yes, an encyclopedia is generally considered a tertiary source. But tertiary sources are appropriate for summary information as opposed to detail. Plus many of the articles in Banglapedia represent original research and thus arguably qualify as secondary. Furthermore I defy you to name a source that is absolutely free from controversy of one kind or another. The decorated nytimes is not without stain, for example. The complaints against Banglapedia linked above have major sourcing problems of their own -- being both tertiary and opinion. Banglapedia, with 5000 pages, is an unparalleled source of info written mostly by serious scholars. It is not the last word, especially on sensitive issues like the independence war, but I believe it has a place as a reference here. The article gained featured status in the first place with these very references in place, so I would urge people to focus on the other more pressing issues. Currently only 6 out of 84 references are from Banglapedia and none of them are sensitive issues at all (eg, jute, dance, film). Dejo (talk)
I have organized the Sports section and removed some out of scope detail. Dejo (talk)
Comment - Still seeing unsourced chunks, poorly referenced paragraphs, etc, as well as short-paragraphs and one-sentence-long-paragraphs, throughout. -- Cirt (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have fixed the issue of single sentence paragraphs and short paragraphs, by merging them according to logical cohesion. --Ragib (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that more information should be included in this article. After the fall of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1975 a senior Awami League leader Khondekar Mustaq Ahmed became President of Republic and promulgated martial law all over Bangladesh. He formed a cabinet with right wing awami leaders and kept the parliament alive. He sought the support of the members of the parliament but they refused to cooperate Kh Mustaq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divine Poet (talk • contribs)
Thanks Cirt for your concern. It would be greatly helpful if you or someone else could be a little more specific. If I am not wrong, all the specific concerns have been addressed so far. Aditya(talk • contribs)01:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From my observations of FAR, thinking of it as a process where specific concerns are stated to be addressed individually point-by-point is not the best way to look at it. That's a road to frustration. In most cases what the reviewers here are looking for, although they seem to be reluctant to say so outright, is a major overhaul. Maybe you can ask the delist voters on a scale from 1 to 100 how far from a support they are to get a better idea of how much more work they think is needed and compare that to how much effort you are willing to exert to attempt to keep the article as a FA. Lambanog (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sourcing concerns still remain, for an article purportedly of FA quality. Banglapedia remains cited in the article, at least 5 times. Would be a good idea for a previously-uninvolved-image-editor to come by and do an image review check. -- Cirt (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okies. All Banglapedia cites have been replaced with other book cites. Independent image editors have been requested to take a look at the article. Anything else? I am too close to the subject to make judgments, but I am close enough to follow instructions. Aditya(talk • contribs)04:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Y fixed.