Talk:Priority Sector Lending Certificates

Disclosure

I i.e. A.M.Godbole have been cited in this article.Amgodbole (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sentence case

Reserve Bank of India (India's Central Bank) and Government of India Ministry of Finance consistently use 'Priority Sector Lending Certificates' in title case and not in sentence case. Also, Reserve Bank of India and Government of India Ministry of Finance use the abbreviation 'PSLCs' and not 'PSLC'. This can be seen in the relevant cited sources.Amgodbole (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

FAQ as external link

Incorporating the FAQs as an external link and including it as point#13 in the Background section. Making the formatting consistent. Perhaps, a citation would be useful for the sentence on additional types of Priority Sector Lending Certificates.Amgodbole (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Declare edits

Dropped "PLSC SF/MF: Priority Sector Lending Certificates for small and marginal Farmers lending sub-target will also qualify for Weaker Section target." There is currently no PSLC type for weaker sections as mentioned in point#4 of the RBI FAQs. Reworded the section on 'Penalties' and renamed this section as 'Rewards and Penalites'.Amgodbole (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Improved clarity in the first sentence.Amgodbole (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Made the first sentence shorter in length.Amgodbole (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed FAC nomination

I've removed the nomination for Featured article, as this article is quite far from that quality. Some of the problems are that is has short sections, some of them only one sentence; and it relies heavily on one source with which the primary editor as a conflict of interest. The article needs expansion with other independent sources, checking for COI and plagiarism issues (since it relies so much on one source), and then thorough copyediting by an independent editor. --Laser brain (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Response to removal of FAC nomination

"short sections": There are two short sections ("Criticism", "Alternatives") with two sentences each. I believe that at least the section "Criticism" is essential for a Neutral Point of View. I think the other section i.e. "Alternatives" is also useful for a Neutral Point of View. I could combine the two sections if that helps. Please advise.

"relies heavily on one source"; "independent sources";"plagiarism issues (since it relies so much on one source)": There are 14 references. These are all reliable independent source including three Government/quasi-Government sources from India and two Government/quasi-Government sources from the United States. The sources are:

• India's Ministry of Finance (Reference List Item#2)
• India's Planning Commission (Reference List Item#8,9)
• Reserve Bank of India (India's Central Bank) (Reference List Item#4,10,11,12,13)
• USAID (US Agency for International Development) (Reference List Item#7)
• Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (part of the US Federal Reserve system) (Reference List Item#3)
• Mint (India's second largest selling business newspaper) (Reference List Item#1)
• Hindu Business Line (published by the Hindu group---one of the oldest newspaper publishers in the world!---it began publishing a daily in 1889) (Reference List Item#14)
• The Indian Express (a leading newspaper in India---Express Group has been around for more than 75 years) (Reference List Item#5)
• BusinessWorld ---a business magazine published in India (Reference List Item#6)

"primary editor as a conflict of interest": I am a Subject Matter Expert in this area. That's the reason I am cited in the USAID document---Reference item#7: first sentence on Page 5. I have a disclosure about citing myself in the very first sentence of the talk page. I do not have a Financial Conflict of Interest. Please note that Priority Sector Lending Certificates is a tool for public policy (in the area of directed lending). I understand that as per the Wikipedia Manual of Style an inline citation is essential when a quotation has one or more sentences and so it's essential that I i.e. A.M. Godbole am cited.

1. Kindly, include this article again as a FAC.
2. If there are any specific quality issues I shall make an effort to address it irrespective of your decision on point#1.
3. Given this response kindly consider closing "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page."
4. Given this response kindly consider closing "This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources."Amgodbole (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Amgodbole, I think it's reasonable to remove the maintenance banners, given your response. Checking content for unintentional plagiarism (close paraphrasing) is natural and part of the editorial collaborative process. However, I am a coordinator at WP:FAC and I will not be reinstating the nomination. The article is quite far from Featured quality. I'm actually surprised LaMona rated it at a B-class; I would put it closer to Start class. At any rate, you may want to review some other articles at Wikipedia:Featured articles to see what level of quality is expected and familiarize yourself with our standards. --Laser brain (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, User:Laser_brain, feel free to change the class designation. Not knowing the sector (and covering a wide variety of topics at AfC) I fully accept that I may have gotten the class designation wrong. LaMona (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Laser_brain, I appreciate the time you have already taken to help me. I will take your advice constructively. I have a query related to your advice for improving the quality of of this article to the level required for a FA by looking at other FAs. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find an FA on a financial instrument (Carbon credit, Derivatives,... are not FA; even a widely read article (?) like "Stock" is not FA). I will of course continue to search for an FA article on a financial instrument.

(FYI: So far I have made a sincere attempt to study a few articles from The World Book Encyclopedia and I do know that an image/picture is desirable in the Priority Sector Lending Certificates article but I have not been able to address this as I could not find an image that meets Wikipedia criteria (I found one photo of a Reserve Bank of India Deputy Governor launch Priority Sector Lending Certificates...but that does not meet Wikipedia criteria). The current version of the Priority Sector Lending Certificates article is intentionally written in summary style.)

Any additional help will be much appreciated.Amgodbole (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Talk Section

Amgodbole (talk) 06:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Reserve Bank of India Priority Sector Lending Certificates FAQs updated on 22 Nov 2016

Included "(Updated on 22 Nov 2016)" for the external link to the RBI FAQs. The link itself is unchanged.Amgodbole (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"Market-based pricing" and "Background" edited based on the Reserve Bank of India Annual Report 2016-17

The Reserve Bank of India Annual Report 2016-17 (30-Aug-2017) has important data about pricing and traded volumes for Priority Sector Lending Certificates. References have also been edited accordingly.Amgodbole (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)