Wikipedia:Peer review/Narasimham Committee on Banking Sector Reforms (1998)/archive1

Narasimham Committee on Banking Sector Reforms (1998)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this Topic is about a series of economic and political changes that happened in India, transforming India from a very weak economy in the early 1990s to an economy resilient enough to weather the Financial crisis (2007–present) that crippled half the world. It is obviously only one of the many factors but a significant one nonetheless.

Thanks,
abhishek singh 19:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Apterygial

Hi Abhishek. The article needs a fair bit of work, so I'm going to give a fairly basic review. Any questions or problems, feel free to leave them below my own comments.

The lead needs to be a summary of the article, and no information should be mentioned in the lead which is not in the body of the text.
First of all, you need to establish a context for the article in the lead. The first sentence assumes knowledge of the state of the banking sector before this body was initiated. You establish a context in the background section, so the lead should summarise this.
What were the key problems with the banking sector? That is, what prompted the committee (for example, was the sector seen as being too insular, were the problems mainly legal or was there a technical aspect)?
Once linked, an article does not need to be linked again (for example, there are two links to Economy of India in the first paragraph of the background section.
You can also reword your links by piping them, so [[Economic liberalisation in India|economic liberalisation]] comes out as economic liberalisation. This helps repeating words (in this case "India" and helps the flow of the article.
Spell out what "GOI" and "RBI" is the first time you mention it, as I had to hover over the links to understand the acronyms.
I would recommend merging all of the headings under Recommendations of the Committee, as many of the sections are only a sentence or so long. You should be able to link each of them together using prose.
Merging sentences together into two or three paragraphs in the Implementation of recommendations section would also help.
Headings shouldn't generally contain links; you should be able to include those links in the prose beneath.
The article needs a comprehensive Copyedit to clear us some often clunky prose. Go through the article carefully to spot any mistakes, and ask if you need help.
References should follow punctuation.
For the references, they need to include the title of the article you are citing. For example, the first one (which is currently labelled "The Frontline Article") needs to be re-named "Radical prescriptions", as this is the title of the article. The second one should be called "Narasimham Committee Report 1991 1998 - Recommendations", not ""Kalyan City articles".
I spotted at least a couple of instances of whole sentences being taken almost unedited from sources and included here. Note that you should at least re-word any information you get from sources when you include it in the article.
Make sure every work you cite follows Wikipedia's rules of verifiability and is a reliable source.

Again, let me know if you have any questions or comments. You've done some good work on the article, and it clearly has scope for further expansion. The effects of the reforms in advancing India's economic position, for example, and its impact on the resilience of the Indian economy (which you mentioned in your introductory statement and briefly at the bottom of the article) would be useful. Thanks, Aptery gial 10:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I went through and had another look, and made some minor changes. Some other points:

Unless particularly relevant, people shouldn't have titles next to their names in Wikipedia articles (in this case "Mr.").
There should always be a space between the end of a word and an opening parenthesis. So National Housing Bank (NHB), not National Housing Bank(NHB)
References should usually follow punctuation, not sit in the middle of sentences.
Per WP:OVERLINK, once linked you shouldn't need to link an article again.
If you want to link to a site outside Wikipedia, this is better done in the references or in an external links section, not in the body of the article.
Make sure every fact you include in the article is covered by a reference.

Overall, nice work! There has been a big improvement in the article from when it first came to PR. Good luck with its further improvement and your other activities on Wikipedia. Aptery gial 10:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]