Wikipedia:Featured article review/Karnataka/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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC) [1].

Karnataka

Notified: KNM, Aviator423, Girth Summit, WikiProject India, Indian states, Talk page notification from April

Review section

This article was promoted in 2007 and has never been reviewed since. The article has a substantial number of unsourced statements, and a breakdown of the lack of references in the first 2 sections can be found in the article's talk page. There are many more throughout the article, though. Problems spotted:

Uncited information, in practically every section of the article;
Dated information (just examples):

some statistics from 2002, 2007;
"the state government intends to invest ₹700 million ... in a "Silk City" "" - this is sourced to two news pieces from 2009... is there a follow-up?
"Shimoga, Hassana and Bijapur airports are being built and are expected to be operational soon." - what does "soon" mean in this context?

The Climate section has a number of tables that a) do not add much to the article, since it's raw data; b) should be converted into text instead (if rainfall is that important that needs 3 different tables, there's something to be said about it in text); c) are duplicated from the respective sub-articles;

Ditto for the subdivisions, the whole section is unsourced with big tables that do not offer much;

References need clean-up; there's duplicated refs (The Hindu), inadequate formatting (Archived copy as title), bare urls, etc;
Puffery (X, Y and Z "are famous private universities in Karnataka.", this place "has of the rarest and unique collections of flora and fauna.").

Article does not meet the FA criteria. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly removed all of those tables on climate and provided some concise information on climate change to the article. I cannot find the temperature records in scientific sources, and am insufficiently familiar with Indian newspapers to know which ones I can cite. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to talk page with a reminder to avoid personalization and WP:FOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If FA status is going to have any sort of continued meaning whatsoever, it's important to make sure that articles claiming that status meet this criteria. This one doesn't by a mile. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not FA, and not even GA standard ~~Delist~~ - This article is definitely not an FA by any means. Infact, this article isn't even of WP:GA quality. There are plenty of unsourced statements throughout this article. A small sample of it was highlighted in April for 1 or 2 sections, but overall this article lacks citations for plenty of statements. The Education, Media, Sports and Tourism sections are Listy and a sea of blue links. The Flora and fauna section is also a big list, instead of descriptive and narrative prose. They lack suitable prose and content for an FA. Duplicate links (MOS:DUPLINKS) are common in the article and are too long to even get mentioned here. Copyediting and prose are not of FA quality either. There are statements in the article that exaggerate information - for example, "Karnataka also has a special place in the world", "Karnataka occupies a special place in the history of Indian radio" and many more.

"Recently Karnataka has emerged as a center of health care tourism." - It's an example of WP:RECENTISM.

There are many statements having Original Research (WP:OR). Some of them are "The state is projected to warm about 2.0 °C (4 °F) by 2030. The monsoon is set to provide less rainfall."

Another example of Original Research - "Bangalore Karaga, celebrated in the heart of Bangalore, is the second most important festival celebrated in Karnataka." - Statement does not exist in the mentioned source.

I suggest Delisting Karnataka from WP:FA as soon as possible.

Aviator423 (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or delist are not declared in this stage of the process (per instructions above); the statemetns about climate are supported by the following source. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC there is a substantial amount of uncited text, economy is extremely dated, and there is the typical jamup and MOS:SANDWICHing of images that is classic for unwatched articles. Some edits made, but no real progress on considerable issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delist clear-cut. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Not even close. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, significant issues, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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