The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. My apologies for the long wait! If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on my talk page, either's fine! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello @Ganesha811:! Thank you for taking up this review. I'll be watching this page, but responses might get a little delayed. Thank you again and do keep the suggestions coming. :) Ashwin147 (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi! There are a number of sourcing issues with this article. I'm going to keep on going through the sources, but after that will put the rest of the review on hold until source problems are addressed. Sourcing concerns like this could lead to a failure to pass GA, so they'll have to be addressed first before other issues are discussed. Let me know your timeline for being able to address them. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi! I'm going to put this on hold for a week. However, the sourcing issues are significant, and the list below doesn't even include everything that could be improved. If the sourcing is not dramatically improved, I may have to fail the nomination per WP:GAFAIL issue #1, namely that is a long way from meeting GA criteria #2. I understand that you are busy and that you waited a long time for this review, and if you request it, I can extend the hold for another week to give you more time. The issues are fixable, but it will take a lot of work to fix them. Let me know what you think of all this. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hey. Just gimme a little more time. I think I've fixed most of the stuff you'd flagged. The combining of sources bit remains and I'm no good with Visual Editor. So do extend the hold. Ashwin147 (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Ashwin147, I noticed you haven't edited the article since the 2nd. Will you have time in the next week (before the 13th) to address the remaining source issues, and any others that may come up? —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hey! Been a busy couple of weeks. I see light at the end of the tunnel now. Can we extend the date to the 16th evening? That should give me the benefit of a weekend in case things don't wind up by the 13th. Ashwin147 (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
There are a number of valid [excessive citations] tags - please address each of these, choosing the 1-3 most reliable and best-attributed sources. A statement of fact generally doesn't need more than one reliable source to back it up.
The flagged instances have all be taken care of. But there are a few more with as many as 4 citations. In the process of resolving those as well. Ashwin147 (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
Extended content
The Cabinet Secretariat document cites can have more detail added to them, such as their original date, location, and publisher (Government of India).
I'm unable to find much information about Nikhat Ekbal or Great Muslims of Undivided India, can you make a case for this source being reliable?
Unable to find author information. But I find that the book is referenced in at least 5 other books available on Google Books. That should suffice regarding reliability? Ashwin147 (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
If it's not needed to support the information given, it can be removed. As mentioned, if a source is high quality, only one is needed to back up a statement of fact. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I am skeptical that COUNTERVIEW.org is reliable. Can you make a case for this?
I cannot access the Sekhawat book, but I am concerned about the neutrality of the information given in Wikipedia's voice. Even the Star of Mysore is just reporting on one guy's opinion (Bhyrappa) who does not appear to be a subject matter expert. I would remove the sentence and its two citations altogether. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Disagree. Sekhawat, Bhyrappa, Khurshid. That's three citations. I could also see another article online where Kuldip Nayyar says the same thing. Khurshid and Nayyar may not be academicians but as people with long careers in politics, it wouldn't be fair to dismiss them. Also, the sentence in the article says he's been accused of it. Not presented as a fact of him having done it. Ashwin147 (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, if the information is cited in reliable secondary sources elsewhere, the simplest solution is to just delete the tertiary source. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Cites #74 and #76 (Rubinoff) appear to be identical, combine.
I don't know what to do. The expand citations/citation bot used to do the trick but it has not worked for me for a long while now. Suggestions?Ashwin147 (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Cite #90 (Naidu) is an opinion piece, should be replaced by an academic source.
A fact stated in an opinion piece as opposed to an opinion being passed off as a fact is unacceptable? As for the statement that Pathak was elected in 1969 with the support of the Congress Party, I could add this citation. Ashwin147 (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
If nothing else is available, a fact stated in an opinion article is acceptable, but it can be more difficult to distinguish opinion and fact in an op-ed, as well as possible lower or different standards for fact-checking by the institution publishing it. If the NYTimes source is sufficient, you could just delete Naidu. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
The NYTimes link is about Pathak having won as a candidate of the Congress in 1969. I'll add that as an additional citation since this isn't clearly mentioned in the existing citations. Ashwin147 (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
What is Cite #97, exactly? What is your case for it being reliable? (Charan Lal Sahu vs Shri Fakruddin Ali Ahmed & Ors)
It is a database of case laws available, for the most part, for free to the public. In this case, it has the judgement in full. Why is it unreliable? Ashwin147 (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
That seems fine - not saying that it is unreliable, just wanted to learn more about it and hear your opinion, since I couldn't discover much. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Cite #98, Bar & Bench, appears to be a blog or similar. Can you make a case for it being reliable?
The site calls itself India's "premier online portal for Indian legal news". Adjectives aside, the column is based on an interview with Sahu. Again, why does it appear to be unreliable? Ashwin147 (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Self description on a website is not meaningful and self-reported information in an interview has the potential for bias and lack of independent perspective. The fact that it is used to cite seems fairly non-controversial, so the Kanoon source is probably plenty here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ok, stopping here at the first 100 (of 228 cites!). There are significant source issues, plenty of work to be done here.
Many citations would be improved by page numbers, or at least chapter titles - Coomi Kapoor's book on The Emergency is 400 pages long and cited generically along with three other sources.
If you can get a print source from a library to check it, that would be ideal. If not, a chapter title would help the reader locate the information within the book.
I don't know much about News18 - can you make a case for it being a reliable source? I can't find anything relevant at WP:RSN beyond this, which isn't very helpful.
I can't find much information on Children: Voyage into Problem Space, whether about the author or the publisher. Can you make a case for it being reliable?
True. The Google Books link is confusing. Hence deleted it and replaced with an article from JSTOR. The point was about abolishing bonded labour by ordinance which is also mentioned here. Ashwin147 (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
NCERT seems tricky as a source - it's tertiary, it's a children's textbook, and it's produced by the government of India itself, making it non-neutral for the kind of information it's used to support.
I'm unconvinced, it's just a blog. I would want to see academics citing their work, or major newspapers describing them as well-respected, things like that. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Cite #156 - can you make a case for Open being a reliable source? There appear to have been issues with journalistic independence in the past.
I doubt that can be said of the two articles cited here. One is a verbatim reproduction of Mrs. Gandhi's speech. The other was to say how Ahmed's image was dented because of the Abu Abraham cartoon. Ashwin147 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Cite #165 appears to be an unpublished dissertation or thesis, which is discouraged per WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
The Newspapers.com citations from #180-200, approximately, are generally missing article titles and other information (such as that they are from the UPI agency). Some of them (such as Manitowoc) also seem to have very little actual information not already contained in other sources. Please remove redundant cites.
Redundant cites removed. In none of the cases do we have more than 2 newspaper citations. The details shown are as per citation toolbar when the links from the newspaper.com archive are entered in it under the cite news option. Can we leave it at that since the links go directly to the news article on the page mentioned? Ashwin147 (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
The information currently there is what appears when the relevant newspapers.com url is entered in the citation toolbar under the 'cite news' option at the time of writing the article. It is auto-generated to show the name of the newspaper, the page number and the date of publication. And on clicking the link, it takes the reader directly to the news item on the page. To type out individual headlines and stuff that is not captured by the toolbar is going to be cumbersome and serves little purpose as the source and all other details are already made available to the reader. Ashwin147 (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Can you make a case for Architexturez being a reliable source?
It says "they documents processes, critical texts and nomothetic cases representing conditions obtained in South Asia. Documents are distributed online without profit, for research and educational purposes under fair use provisions of the Berne Convention." The article is by Ram Rahman and the site generally seems to have an excellent coverage of Delhi's architecture. Why does it appear to be not reliable? Ashwin147 (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Not as comprehensive as it would need to be for FA (some of his time in Assam government could be better covered), but at a generally appropriate level of detail and goes more in-depth where appropriate. Pass.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Pass, no issues with overdetail.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
I will be scrutinizing this article closely, covering as it does one of India's most controversial periods. For now, my first concern is about the accusations of votebanking in the 1950s. I cannot verify the Sekhawat source, and the Star of Mysore piece is just an interview with a non-historian who states their own opinion. The Khurshid source only mentions Ahmed in passing and says that the connection "was put down as a long-term result of", implying this isn't the author's view but the view of others. For this kind of controversial accusation, I'd want peer-reviewed pieces in academic journals, or well-reviewed books by well-known historians, not a politician. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Shekhawat's credentials should meet the criteria? I agree Bhyrappa may not be the best source and am willing to take that out but what about Kuldip Nayyar or this book by Jagmohan? To say that something is a fact only when academicians have passed verdict on it might not be fair. Again, Source#48 says the same thing. That's Nayyar, Khurshid, Jagmohan and two academicians - Sekhawat and Ghosh. Ashwin147 (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
It would be ideal if I (and other readers) could verify Sekhawat, but I will AGF that the offline source is as stated. I would remove the Bhyrappa source altogether and go with Nayyar and Sekhawat as the two sources here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Why are there two citations to Youtube videos for a non-controversial image caption (Bulgaria)?
Because my instincts are to always cite/source things. ;-) One's a YT video from AP and the other is British Pathe. I was curious as to who these people are and the photo caption was rather bland. Ashwin147 (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't think the citations are needed for this kind of very non-controversial information. As long as the information is verifiable (and it evidently is), we're good. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
