Wikipedia:Featured article review/Political integration of India/archive2

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) 5:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC) [1].

Political integration of India[edit]

Notified: User talk:Vadakkan; User talk:Rama's Arrow; WT:INB; WT:HOI; WT:POLITICS; WT:PAK; talk-page notice 2022-01-02

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because the issues Buidhe mentioned on the talk page haven't been addressed. There's a fair amount of uncited text, and sourcing more generally is also a concern: the article relies heavily on older sources (including primary sources like V. P. Menon's book) at the expense of more recent ones (for instance, [2], [3], and [4] aren't cited at all). Other issues include a too-short lead and a large number of duplicate links. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC: citation needed templates have not been addressed. Kautilya3 outlined problems on the talk page about the use of primary sources and Indian nationalist POV (of which I am not knowledgeable enough to comment about, which is why I am pinging them). Z1720 (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point I made was that the notion of "integration" (by independent India) is insufficiently explained. The term comes from V. P. Menon, the chief Indian official in charge of the affairs, and it has been replicated by scholars in a nominal way. But the article suggests that there was substantive "integration", when it starts talking about "reasons for integration" etc. If the "integration" is a fresh phenomenon that didn't exist during the British Raj, that needs to be substantiated. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, coverage and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - I'm not convinced that the use of Raj and transition era sources represents high-quality sourcing for this topic. Hog Farm _Talk 01:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – no improvements, unfortunately. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist issues remain, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 2 December 2022 (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) 05:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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