The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 5:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because even though it passed FAC, two of the books used extensively in the article (those by G. Dhananjayan) were later revealed to be mirror publications (although the Kalidas chapter in them did not copy from us). Still I chose to play safe by removing the two books, resulting in the article being largely reworked, and now it will need to go through a FAR to check whether it is still FA worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply
I have been through the last version with the tainted sources, and it seems that all the information that was being referenced using the books has either been reworked or has been furnished with newer and more reliable sources. I have been through every word of the Madras Musings source that has been (majorly) used to replace the old sources, and can say with complete assurance that it substantiates every piece of information that it needs to. Will go through the entire article as a whole again, but this is impressive work so far. It's not an easy job to look up sources for an Indian multi-lingual lost film, but Kailash here does remarkably well and I commend him for that. Numerounovedant Talk 20:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Kailash29792: Could you please notify the relevant WikiProjects about this review? Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 0:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC) [3].
The main editor has an admitted COI, self-mitigated by "Citing yourself", placing the burden of proof on the reviewer. Two issues here; the afore mentioned COI, which I am uncomfortable with prima facie.
Second, many of the sources presented here do not seem to pass the RS test; Briarcliff Manor Centennial Committee, Village of Briarcliff Manor, Caltone Color Graphics Inc, Village of Briarcliff Manor, Pleasantville-Briarcliff Manor Patch, American FactFinder, etc. Ceoil ( talk) 04:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC) reply
I gave you two weeks in a charitable view (current FAC), two months in a less charitable view (last FAC), on a remarkably similar, Briarcliff related, topic. I have been stonewalled especially in the last two weeks, with an utter lack of concern for sources on your behalf, which you have defend via mis-characterisation and beligerance. That tells me three things:
What makes these reliable sources
Wait, am I missing something here? Did the nominator create this FAR on the 8th, then add on the FARC section themselves the following day? That's, uh... not how this works. Pinging @ FAR coordinators: . -- Pres N 14:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Hi just letting people know I have been away, and have been mostly away from computers, which will likely continue to be until the 24th. I'll be able to give a complete response then. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Per Bluerasberry's thoughts, please see Talk:Briarcliff Manor, New York#Sources for answers about the contested sources. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 5:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because even though it passed FAC, two of the books used extensively in the article (those by G. Dhananjayan) were later revealed to be mirror publications (although the Kalidas chapter in them did not copy from us). Still I chose to play safe by removing the two books, resulting in the article being largely reworked, and now it will need to go through a FAR to check whether it is still FA worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply
I have been through the last version with the tainted sources, and it seems that all the information that was being referenced using the books has either been reworked or has been furnished with newer and more reliable sources. I have been through every word of the Madras Musings source that has been (majorly) used to replace the old sources, and can say with complete assurance that it substantiates every piece of information that it needs to. Will go through the entire article as a whole again, but this is impressive work so far. It's not an easy job to look up sources for an Indian multi-lingual lost film, but Kailash here does remarkably well and I commend him for that. Numerounovedant Talk 20:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Kailash29792: Could you please notify the relevant WikiProjects about this review? Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 0:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC) [3].
The main editor has an admitted COI, self-mitigated by "Citing yourself", placing the burden of proof on the reviewer. Two issues here; the afore mentioned COI, which I am uncomfortable with prima facie.
Second, many of the sources presented here do not seem to pass the RS test; Briarcliff Manor Centennial Committee, Village of Briarcliff Manor, Caltone Color Graphics Inc, Village of Briarcliff Manor, Pleasantville-Briarcliff Manor Patch, American FactFinder, etc. Ceoil ( talk) 04:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC) reply
I gave you two weeks in a charitable view (current FAC), two months in a less charitable view (last FAC), on a remarkably similar, Briarcliff related, topic. I have been stonewalled especially in the last two weeks, with an utter lack of concern for sources on your behalf, which you have defend via mis-characterisation and beligerance. That tells me three things:
What makes these reliable sources
Wait, am I missing something here? Did the nominator create this FAR on the 8th, then add on the FARC section themselves the following day? That's, uh... not how this works. Pinging @ FAR coordinators: . -- Pres N 14:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Hi just letting people know I have been away, and have been mostly away from computers, which will likely continue to be until the 24th. I'll be able to give a complete response then. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Per Bluerasberry's thoughts, please see Talk:Briarcliff Manor, New York#Sources for answers about the contested sources. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply