There are a number of problems with this article. First and foremost, don't you think you should have brought this up on the Talk Page of the article first, rather than nominating it for FAC out of the blue, especially as someone who has no history of working on the article? There are a number of people who have worked on the article and (judging from the talk page), they don't think it is anywhere near completion, or indeed even neutral.
The article needs a copy-edit. I myself copy edited (only) the lead for readability and clarity and didn't even get to the rest of the article. Here are the two versions of the lead before and after my copy edit:
before and
after (and I just noticed I missed a "the").
The the rest of the article likely still has grammatical mistakes. It is far too "listy." It has too much focus on post-partition events (favoring the Indian version) and far too little on the partition itself.
Finally, although any editor can nominate an article for FAC, I am concerned that an article that has been the battleground for many POV-wars, has been nominated by a new editor
Maclean1 (
talk·contribs), who not only has no history of working on the page, but also joined Wikipedia only on 12 February, 2007, and thereafter made no edits until 12 March 2007, when this article was nominated. Doesn't add up.Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I have not read the talk page, but are you
inferring that user Maclean1 was involved in a POV war? You are not
assuming good faith, which is one of the main pillars of Wikipedia. I suggest you strike out your last comment, and keep your responses constructive, like you did before your last statement. While I appreciate all the FAC rewievers constructive comments as I see they have put their time and effort in that, but the rewievers should not let their personal feelings get in the way, and be Objective. --
Paracit05:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
No, I didn't infer anywhere that Maclean1 was involved in POV-wars, just that s/he might not be aware of the complicated history of the article. Your point though is well-taken. My apologies to Maclean1. I withdraw my last set of remarks. Thanks!
Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose:
POV
Poor content. Doesn't delve too much into the reasons of partition and why it eventually led to the two nations splitting up.
Strong oppose: Per Nichalp. Also, the article is unreferenced, too "listy", and not comprehensive. Not to mention the POV. --
Ragib19:38, 15 March 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.