Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bahá'í Faith
Hey, I think this article is very comprehensive and well done. I just stumbled upon it. What do you think? (Nominated by Dmcdevit. →Raul654 07:25, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC))
- Support. I have read this article before, and the only reason I didn't nominate it then was because I had just joined Wikipedia and did not yet know about Featured articles. Extremely well-written and comprehensive. RyanGerbil10 08:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Object. Insufficient references.Johnleemk | Talk 08:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)- Support now, good work, though I cannot vouch for the material personally.
Object, agree with John Lee, references are critical, and this has none. Also the intro mentions it is the second most widespread of the "independent religions". What makes it more independant than any other religion?- Taxman 12:42, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)- Ok that seems all taken care of.
Only thing I see left is alot of orphan paragraphs, of just one sentence or so. It makes the text flow poorly in spots. Some more should either be expanded or merged with nearby paragraphs.- Taxman 00:29, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)- Combined 5 sets of 2 paragraphs into 1 paragraph, where I thought the paragraphs were linked enough. There are still a couple short paragraphs, but I feel they are warrented. - Navidazizi 5:20, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Ok that seems all taken care of.
- Abstain. Taxman, for the answer to your question, please see the talk page. i think the related articles are still incomplete, not sure if that is reason enough not to include as a featured article though... - --Cyprus2k1 13:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- My point was more that the article needs to make that clear, not the talk page. The talk page is one editor claiming it is independent, not a verifiable source. - Taxman
- BBC - --Cyprus2k1 17:54, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Great, that is an improvement.
Why not format that BBC source and others that were legitimately used as proper references as in the featured article criteria? Specifically, Wikipedia:Cite sources shows how to properly format external links used as sources.And also, related articles do not affect the ability of this one to be a featured article. This article stands on its own merits. - Taxman 02:24, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)- I've tried to clean up the references according to your suggestions to check out Wikipedia:Cite sources. - Navidazizi 06:54, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Great, that is an improvement.
- BBC - --Cyprus2k1 17:54, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- My point was more that the article needs to make that clear, not the talk page. The talk page is one editor claiming it is independent, not a verifiable source. - Taxman
- Support. The article looks great and is not polemical like articles on the other religions. PMLF 23:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Abstain. I have added references to the article, including the one for the "second most widespread religion." 01:07, 29 Dec 2004 Navidazizi
- That is an impressive amount of references to be added.
Can you confirm that those sources were used to confirm the material in the article and substantially agree with what is there?- Taxman 21:05, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)- Of the 13 references, 5 are for citations from the Bahá'í writings used in the article, 1 backs up the socio-economic development projects that the Bahá'ís are involved in, another is in reference to the relationship to the UN, 3 (including the one by the BBC) are for general Bahá'í information, 1 on the history of the Bahá'í Faith, and 2 are ex-Bahá'í websites which are included in reference to the NPOV statements that are in the main text of the article. I think that accounts for most things in the article. -- - Navidazizi 23:06, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Very nice work. Thank you. - Taxman 00:29, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Added a couple more history references, one from a non-Baha'i source (E.G. Browne) -- - Navidazizi 5:20, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Very nice work. Thank you. - Taxman 00:29, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Of the 13 references, 5 are for citations from the Bahá'í writings used in the article, 1 backs up the socio-economic development projects that the Bahá'ís are involved in, another is in reference to the relationship to the UN, 3 (including the one by the BBC) are for general Bahá'í information, 1 on the history of the Bahá'í Faith, and 2 are ex-Bahá'í websites which are included in reference to the NPOV statements that are in the main text of the article. I think that accounts for most things in the article. -- - Navidazizi 23:06, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
- That is an impressive amount of references to be added.
- Support. great--ZayZayEM 05:06, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)