Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/Shahbag - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gallileo2k (talk | contribs) at 06:40, 15 April 2007 ([]: re SandyGeorgia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:40, 15 April 2007 by Gallileo2k (talk | contribs) ([]: re SandyGeorgia)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Shahbag

Shahbag is a major historic neighbourhood in Dhaka, capital of Bangladesh. Situated at the heart of the city, the area and its surroundings have seen many historic events, including the Language Movement, and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's historic 7th March,1971 speech.

The article has been improved greatly by User:Aditya Kabir in the recent months. It is well referenced, has many GFDL/CC licensed photos, and adequately referenced with properly formatted citations. It is well written, factual, comprehensive, neutral, and stable. The article has also gone through an extensive peer review, where most of the major points have been addressed by now. I believe this article fulfills the featured article criteria, and therefore, I nominate this article for FAC. --Ragib 07:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose Blue-linked footnotes, no biblio formatting, cluttered with HTML format tags (they are the default—aren't needed). It's hard for the reader to determine if your sources are reliable when publishers aren't identified. All sources should have a publisher, author and date when available, and all websources need a last access date. Please see WP:CITE/ES, or you can use cite templates if you don't know how to format footnotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you mean we shouldn't have any weblinks in the footnotes? But the Cite news templates do link to the news article URLs ... Anyway, I'm fixing them now. --Ragib 14:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have completed a copy-edit and partial re-write. There are still some unresolved issues though:
    • The references need to be in alphabetical order and in the format: last name, first name. year of publication. name of book/journal article. name of book publisher/journal. page number(s).
    • The map needs to have some more street names, at least enough to clarify the first paragraph here, e.g. Elephant Road, Supreme Court (likely the High Court?), Diabetic Hospital.
    • There are some other problems (logical flow and accuracy issues, like the one mentioned by Dwaipayanc). I am making a list of them in the Questions section in the article talk page. Could the people in the know, please answer there and I will incorporate them into the text. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "Institute of Arts and Crafts", as mentioned in this page, where is it? I mean it does not get mentioned in the article, unless it's been mentioned in some other name.
  • Institute of Cost & Management Accountants and IBA needs proper wikilinking. The former leads to another entity, while the later is a disambiguation page.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Apology. Sorry for being somewhat away. Between a business pitch for GrameenPhone and preparations for Pohela Baishakh, I got a bit tied up. The map issues will be solved in a couple of days, as soon as the Sorry for uploading a partial map (as stated in the caption) and creating confusions. Trying to create a more complete map in the proper format (*.svg), at least with the bounderies and major features including road names. Aditya Kabir 18:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The lead looks long-ish. - SpLoT // 08:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment/Support I think the lead is the right size, nontheless I think the article is well constructed. Since I shared by thoughts about a week ago on the writers talk page, I have not much to say. Albeit, the lenghts of the sections, especiaaly the lead and the History section could be shorter or broken or integrated into smaller sections as with the rest of the article. But thst is not substantial in such an enjoyable article. Should pass in my opinion. If you want me to copyedit as other reviewers suggested, I could help to win their favor?Showmanship is the key 01:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)