Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Royroydeb (talk · contribs) 16:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Royroydeb, Thanks a lot for taking the review. I am happy to answer any questions that may arise, and I should generally be available during the next week, although our time zones may be different. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

* is one of the two major parties in the Indian political system, along with the Indian National Congress. - I dont know if such a sentence is accepted or not, please show me a GA or FA which has it.

• • I'm not sure I see the issue here; these are the only two parties that have led governments that have lasted their full term, and also the only ones to have ever achieved a majority in the lower house by themselves. A very large number of sources mention their policies vis-a-vis each other, including many in the article. Could you let me know what the precise issue is?

*Ram Janmabhoomi should be in italics

• •  Done
• unexpected defeat - Remove unexpected
  • This is actually from the sources, and it's there because pre-election analysis predicted a victory.
• and the implementation of a uniform civil code. - This statement is controversial, as it is party policy it should be in quotes. Actually it is something claimed by the party which has got diverse opinions.
  • Just to clarify, would you like "uniform civil code" to be in quotes? - Vanamonde93
  • I am not sure why it should be in quotes. Uniform civil code is an established idea, documented in the Constitution. BJP didn't invent it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Hey, we have an uniform civil code for all people, but we have separate set of laws for the miorities - This fact is what the party opposes. See, there are two faces of a coin. At one side, uniform civil code is good for the entire country, but on the contrary the state also should protect the interests of the minorities. So it is best if the nominator can exactly quote what the source says. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done The quote is "...concept of positive secularism stresses that there ought to be a uniform civil code applicable to all citizens of the country irrespective of their religious affiliation." I have tweaked the sentence to match.

• in addition to countering what it perceived to be the appeasement of Muslim - clarify
  • I've tried to make it as clear as possible, but perhaps you may have some suggestions. Here is the quote, from the source, describing the first meeting of the Jana Sangh. "The image was striking; taken from the Hindu epics but also invoking those Hindu warriors who had later fought the Muslim invader. But who, one wonders, represented the evil enemy, the Kauravas? Was it Pakistan, the Muslims, Jawaharlal Nehru or the Congress Party? All figured as hate objects in the speeches of the Sangh’s leaders. The party stood for the reunification of the motherland through the absorption (or perhaps conquest) of Pakistan. It suspected the Indian Muslims as a problem minority, which had ‘not yet learnt to own this land and its culture and treat them as their first love’. The Congress Party was accused of ‘appeasing’ these uncertainly patriotic Muslims." Guha, 2007. What would you suggest? Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

From what the source says, I prefer keeping what it is. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

* The Jana Sangh's first major campaign - when?

• •  Done Early 1953
• Put a footnote about that article 370 on JK
  • What would you like to see in the footnote besides the sentence that is already in the article?
• He died in jail a few months later of a heart attack. - Time frame not clear
  •  Done by Kautilya
• with the leadership in this period - when
  • This is not a single date, but a process; the date of Vajpayee becoming president is given. It was 1968.
• Again comes this uniform civil code one.
  •  Done clarified in the policy section. If you want the sentence copied up, let me know.
• Vajpayee, previously the leader - new section so Vajpayee should be linked.
  •  Done
• his proved to be an impossible assimilation. - why?
  • The rest of the paragraph explains the issues. ("Impossible assimilation" is the title of the chapter in the source.) I reworded the following sentence to connect better. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    •  Done
• assassination of Indira Gandhi - link it
  •  Done

RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• The BJP initially moderated the Hindu nationalist stance of its predecessor the Jana Sangh - how did it moderate? I suggest adding some measures
  •  Done
• as the Congress won a record number of seats. - Link Congress, also specify the no of seats which I remember to be around 400
  •  Done 403 seats, from source.
• The assassination of Indira Gandhi a few months earlier also contributed to the low tally - I personally can't understand what does it mean
  •  Done This created a sympathy wave for the congress. I've clarified it.
• In September 1990, Advani began a "rath yatra" - rath yatra should be in italics with its translation in brackets
  •  Done
• involving thousands of VHP and BJP - word to watch out. Please specify how many
  •  Done
• withdrew her support, and fresh elections were again held. - Citation needed
  •  Done
• However, the NDA unexpectedly suffered a heavy defeat, - remove unexpectedly
  • Responded above; this is in the sources.
• first formulated by Deendayal Upadhyaya in 1965 - link the person's name
  •  Done
• While it was a part of the opposition, the BJP criticized the Congress for subsidizing the Hajj pilgrimage.- Which time? I mean it party was part of opposition several times
  • The source does not mention when, and this is impossible to track down. The incident has very little coverage; the only reason it is there is because some editors felt that times when the BJP has made efforts to increase its support among Muslim people should be mentioned. The date can't be found; I would be fine with deleting that sentence, if you feel it necessary.

If you are unable to trace the date, then remove it. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 10:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

So removed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

* The BJP president said - If I am not wrong, the president was Rajnath Singh RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• • RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি, I will work through this list, but you have not responded to some my replies above, which cover a couple of these. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি, I have responded to virtually all of the points you raised and I'll look over the remaining couple soon. I'd be grateful if you could respond to the points I have raised, and/or continue the review process. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) Sorry for my late response, I hope within one or two days, I will again continue the review. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries, just wanted to make sure that you were aware of my responses. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

First let me go through the entire article, then I will one by one respond and check to all the issues raised.

*The 110 reference says nothing about the number of seats won or win percentage. [This means original research has been done] RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• • You're right, it does not. In my defense, I did not add this reference, but I should have checked it nonetheless. The content is not in dispute, but I will find a working ref. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done

• As per as the MOS of words which prohibits use of words such as previously, this expression should be made more specific - The BJP has previously been the sole party in power in Uttar Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, and Delhi. It has also ruled Odisha and Bihar as part of coalition governments.
  • I'm not certain there is an easy fix for this; the BJP has formed far too many governments for it to be useful to list every one in the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Remove the word previously and make it "The BJP has also been the sole party.. " RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done I misunderstood the first time; if it's the word "previously" that you dislike, it is easily fixed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

*having 100 million registered members - people continue to enrol their names even now. So it is better if "as of.." is added and the specific figure is provided.

• •  Done

*....organisations with similar ideology like the RSS - link RSS

• •  Done

*The various wings of the party mentioned below is unsourced

• • Actually, it is sourced, the source is number 74, used just before the bullet points. If you want me to duplicate it, I can do so, just seems a bit excessive. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I have put them. Otherwise it remains a general citation only. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

*Also as the the names are in Hindi language, I think it would be better if in brackets their English translation is provided. For example Bharatiya Kisan Sangh (Indian Farmer's Organization) etc.

• •  Done

RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Royroydeb, I've made most of the changes, and responded to the other suggestions here. This is ready for another look. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

*The 121 reference says nothing about the number of seats won as well as the percentage. Also a better source is required because the reference used is about an interview.

• • I can find a reference to support this; however, none of the references actually calculate seat percentage, this is a commonsense division of the two figures from the sources. If you want me to get rid of that, that is easily done.
  •  Done added ref. The figure is correct.
• The 120 reference says, that the no of seats won in 37. Also the name of the chief minister is not in the given reference. Percentage unsourced. What is govt since and CM since needs to be clarified with sources.
  •  Done added source, corrected figure (42 is the correct number)

RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Royroydeb, this is ready for another look. Most of your suggestions have been implemented; I've responded to the others here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• @Royroydeb: Not sure if the ping worked the first time; we've been having some troubles with it, so trying again. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen it, I will look into it tomorrow. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Royroydeb: If you're busy I can understand, but I'm really hoping to get this done soon; it's been a while. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, I am really very sorry for the delays; I will be active from this Friday only, I hope I will end this within this week. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• The table about chief ministers is full of WP:Original Research. I again checked the Andra Pradesh one. I suggest you giving Inline Citation to each of the detail. I hope in the next two or three days, the problem will be solved otherwise I will have to fail the nomination.

• I will work on it. I'm not sure exactly what you want, though; are you asking for a cite for the highlights of the table (such as who the chief minister is) or do you want every entry to be cited (which IMO is unnecessary, because the point of the table is to summarize our other articles on the assemblies and the chief ministers)?
• Royroydeb, since you've given me a deadline on this, I really do need a response to my request for clarification. I have a more specific question now; in many cases, there have been multiple consecutive BJP chief ministers. Therefore, sourcing each of them inline would require four or five refs (I've checked). However, most of these states have referenced lists of chief ministers. Would it be acceptable to you if I simply linked these lists? This is hardly controversial information we are talking about here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• "Compared to the Congress, the BJP takes a more aggressive and nationalistic position on defence policy and terrorism" - I am sure that this is someone's quote which has been put directly.

• I wrote that myself, and it is not a copy-right violation, it is drawn from the several sources on the topic that I have provided.

• The section on defence needs to be improved - " It also deployed troops to evict infiltrators from Kargil" - I dont know what it is, wont the Congress party deploy troops to stop infiltrators? "supported the United States' War on Terror" - how? India is not a member of it. "Although previous Congress governments developed the capability for a nuclear weapons test" - All the Congress govts did it?

RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• The statement about infiltrators is there because it is one of the only examples of active BJP defense policy. Presumably, it could instead have held the line, negotiated, stuck to aerial bombardment, surrendered, or whatever. The Vajpayee goverment provided political support to the war on terror; it's in the source. I've added a sentence about motivation to make it clearer. Yes, pretty much all previous governments had something to do with developing nuclear capability. Nehru set up the DAE in 1954 and the AEC, and privately supported Homi Bhabha in whatever he did. Indira Gandhi authorized the first test in 1974. Rajiv Gandhi supported the AEC in its efforts to create a nuclear weapons during the 80s, and apparently substantial progress was made then. Rao almost carried out a test in 1995. The Ganguly source is basically a 30-page history of India's nuclear weapons, and all of this is in there in much greater detail. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Royroydeb, I will respond to these, but it would really be useful if you could look at some of my responses above, so that we can strike those and move on, or alternatively the changes can be made; some of them, I've asked for clarification about a month ago. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• • Royroydeb, Vanamonde93 asked for a second opinion here, and I'd be glad to offer one (I reviewed this article the last time it was nominated for GA). It might be helpful to list the issues still outstanding here, so we can work on finishing them. What's left to do? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Coemgenus, thank you for responding. Of the suggestions that Roroydeb gave me above, I implemented most; there were a few that I did not, and provided and explanation for why not. If you could look these over and weigh in, I would really appreciate it. In particular, the point raised about the list of chief ministers, and the points about the defense section. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I looked at the list of chief ministers earlier. Not sure what the problem with it is. I'll go over the defence section later today. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The reference for Gujarat is this which say nothing about govt since, or no of seats won. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You're right, it does not mention how long the government has been in power; it does give the party affiliation of each member. It is not OR to count how many there are for the BJP. The period that the government has been in power is, in my opinion, taken care of by linking to the (sourced) list, since it is non-controversial information. If necessary, I can copy the sources here; I am reluctant because it would be four or five sources in each case, which would majorly increase clutter. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Royroydeb, could you please list the outstanding issues as soon as possible? I believe I have responded to everything you have raised. Coemgenus has been kind enough to offer a second opinion on the Chief Ministers list, so hopefully you are satisfied with that. Let's try and get this done as soon as possible; it has been more than a month. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• I forgot to get back to you about the Defence section, but I didn't find anything problematic about it when I read it the first time, nor when I read it again just now. It looks neutral and well-cited to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Coemgenus: Hi, can you have a look at the "Ideology and political positions" section for neutrality concerns? RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Royroydeb, I have absolutely no objections to Coemgenus going over any section; however, I should point out that Coemgenus did so a few months ago, and found no substantial issues. I would also really appreciate it if you could address/strike my replies above, so that I know if there are any outstanding issues I should deal with. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Royroydeb, that section looks good to me. Well-written and neutral, with plenty of citations to reliable sources. Was there one part in particular you had questions about? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Royroydeb, based on your statement at the Good Article Help Desk, I am asking if you are able to complete this review today if possible? Or shall we ask Coemgenus if he is able to finish it on your behalf? Thank-you kindly for your efforts. Prhartcom (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Prhartcom, Hi I urge you not to ping me like this. Vanamonde93 You may have a look at a point I replied. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 10:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Royroydeb; okay, I've done that. Was there anything else? I'd really like to wrap this up soon. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Royroydeb - I have nothing to do with this article, but please take another look? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Starship.paint, RRD passed the article after I addressed these last points. He may have simply neglected to close it. Unless you feel there are further issues with the article, which I would be happy to discuss. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oops, my bad. This can be closed, sorry. starship.paint ~ KO 02:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)