Jump to content

Talk:Independence Day (India)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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


I'll start review shortly! But before I start review–

Choose a review type

[edit]
Article Wikipedia Par

Kho na jayeee
Taare Zameen Par
Article Wikipedia par

Because
Every child is special
Every article is special

This section contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous and specially to create a friendly environment in this review. Please do not take it seriously.

Inspired by Taare Zameen Par

A. Quick review
I'll assess the current version very quickly I'll mention all the things which need to be done and problems etc, and pass or fail the current version very quickly. After starting the review it'll take maximum 3–5 days. If nominators/editors think they can't participate in review for some reason, then this type of review is better.

B. Detailed – Conversation based review
If nominator and editors can provide time (what I always prefer)– is conversation type review.

Please select any review type above and let me know. If I do not get any response in next 10 days, I'll start Review A. --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do review type B. Also, it is ok to list problems as you find (the characteristic of type A!).--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section 01

[edit]
WP:OVERLINK
  • Importance: Low

Mahatma Gandhi, IndianNational Congress --Tito Dutta ✉ 11:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now Kolkata
  • Importance: Low

Gandhi decided to stay alone in Calcutta – is it necessary to mention current name? Article has been linked and it actually redirects to "Kolkata", so, if someone wants to learn (s)he can easily check by visiting the page. --Tito Dutta ✉ 11:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major cities
  • Importance: Low

Security measures in Delhi and other major cities are intensified before Independence Day celebration – can you mention which major cities? --Tito Dutta ✉ 11:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tryst with Destiny
  • Importance: Med

Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge.... – (I suggest to) add this line which actually mentions and clarifies "Tryst with Destiny" --Tito Dutta ✉ 11:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:ALSO
File:Flags-on-bicycle-Independence-Day.JPG
  • Importance: Low

Add location in caption

Independence Day or Independence day
  • Importance: Med

I think you are using Independence Day, there seems to be a minor problem here: The Independence day is a national holiday in India --Tito Dutta ✉ 11:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image ALT
  • Importance: Med

Add image alt in few images at least. WP:ALT. --Tito Dutta ✉ 11:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First response to the review commentary:
All concerns addressed. Overlinking reduced for Congress and Gandhi (retained just once linking after the lead); "Kolkata" removed; security intensified all over but more so in some areas-- described in the text; "Tryst with destiny" quoted portion changed to the first paragraph of the actual speech; removed unnecessary see also; consistently used "Independence Day"; image location added; alt text done. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:TIES
  • Importance: High

Are you using British English or American English– I can not understand properly! Currently it is mixed up

The article uses British English. Will continue to make sure that there is no mixing.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed

Flagicon
  • Importance: Low

Just a suggestion– can you add a flagicon in infobox's Observed by parameter?

Added the flag icon.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Space
  • Importance: Low

Give a space between Minster and kite here: Prime Minister,kite flying, singing the national (I can also correct these minor errors without mentioning here. Let me know what do you think?)

 Fixed by reviewer!
Date 15th August
  • Importance: Low
  • A file photo of the Indian Independence Day at the Red Fort on 15th August 1947 in image caption– change to 15 August!
  • Tryst with destiny speech, Jawaharlal Nehru 15th August 1947 quote source! Same!

See WP:DATESNO for more information!  Fixed by reviewer!

Link Overlink
  • Importance: Low
  • I think you can link British India only in lead (which is not linked currently)
  • In same paragraph British Raj been linked twice. Please unlink once!
Which link is incorrect? Can you specify, or even better, just change it to the correct link if just a minor correction. The same paragraph twice linking has been dealt with.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prime Minister or prime minster
  • Importance: Low

Don't use both– Jawaharlal Nehru assumed the office as the first prime minister --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great! will address these concerns. meanwhile, please go ahead and correct things as you feel necessary. the article uses British English/Indian English.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section 02

[edit]
File:Indian Independence Day at the Red Fort.jpg
  • Importance: Med

It seems to be a scene of a film, don't you feel you should crop it and highlight the main portion only?

What do you mean by the "main portion"? Do you propose to delete the trees on the sides? I do not technically know how to do that.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Curtain and text at the bottom of the photo! --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okk, got it. Do not know how to do that. Can you help? Or else, I can try to do that later.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, I can help, if it is going to be an uncontroversial edit, since I have not followed the edits/discussions/consensus, when the image was added (if applicable). To explain more– I have created this. That's the thing I have been saying! --Tito Dutta ✉ 16:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, it is uncontroversial. And the cropped image looks good. IMO you can go ahead and place that in the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If possible, you make the change! An image replacement is not a minor edit (a reviewer may not be permitted), also I want to save my few edits for next few days (we have just started review). You can download the image from there and upload in Commons (don't upload on the existing file, upload separately) --Tito Dutta ✉ 16:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Replaced with cropped image.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion on History
  • Importance: High

You have two sections on history– 1) History 2) History of the Independence Day. If the second section is on history of Independence day then the first history on what? I think, it can create confusion!
--Tito Dutta ✉ 15:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the "History of Independence Day" is actually a history of celebration of the day from 1930 to 1947. so, there are at least two option. One is merging the paragraph to "Celebration" (it would constitute the first paragraph of "Celebration" section in that case). Another option may be to change the name of the "History" section to "background", to avoid semantic confusion. I think the first option is better and less cumbersome. What is your opinion?--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good idea! --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Jawaharlal Nehru Overlink
  • Importance: Low

Minor issue, Nehru (article) has been linked in two consecutive sentences in "Partition and independence" section! --Tito Dutta ✉ 17:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decreased the overlinking of Nehru.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Events
  • Importance: Low

This is a suggestion. 15 August is also independence day of Republic of the Congo, Bahrain. I know it'll vary from person to person, but, if I have to write this article, I'll definitely add this information lead. Or it'll better, I think, if a section (at the end) is created like "Events on 15 August". There mention only few like Republic of the Congo, Bahrain's independence day and birthday of (Indians only) Sri Aurobindo, Raakhee Gulzar, Simple Kapadia (sister of Dimple Kapadia) and death of Amarsinh Chaudhary etc and then the main article 15 August. I feel this'll be awesome, but finally it is a suggestion! --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this will be a collection of trivia. Such collection of trivia is usually discouraged in article. The information, which is not directly related to the Independence of India, is anyway available in the article 15 August.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better if we mention the Congo & Bahrain case in this article too; that's informative. Others are just trivia. AshLey Msg 07:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, I have checked there are lots of (Indian's birth/death days), so, we can not include all. But, those two independence days can be included somewhere in lead! (suggestion)--Tito Dutta ✉ 08:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)![reply]
Ok, but which section should this info be added to? Only lead is not an option; we have to incorporate this info in the body of the article, too. I do not see any connection between the topic of the article and those articles (Independence Days of Congo, Bahrain, and South Korea), so no idea where to incorporate this. One option could be in the "See also" section; but even then how do we rationalize the inclusion in the see also section? Do we say that "other countries with 15 August as Independence/Liberation Day"? Please suggest how do you want to incorporate this. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would we get an exception to that WP:LEAD policy here :) ? Otherwise, it would be difficult to fix it.
Although no policy is an unavoidable rule, still we should try to stick to the established policies. I personally like such trivia (as a kid we used to get this particular question often in quiz, and the patent answer was South Korea!), but I see no way to accommodate that information within this article in a non-trivial way. Any ideas?--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of the section celebrations is In some locations such as several cities in the United States, 15 August has received the nomenclature "India Day" among the diaspora as well as the local populace. What about including into it, without getting out of topic?VanischenumTalk 16:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Despite trying, I could not figure out a way to incorporate the other countries in a non-trivial way. So, I propose not to include this information for now. If someone comes up with a nice idea in future, of course that can be considered. However,for now let's close this thread, since it is a minor issue, and perhaps spending resource for this is not worth it. Moreover, the GA decision cannot end without ending all open threads. So, I request everyone involved to let go this idea for now, with the option to add this later in future in case a proper acceptable way emerges. Agree? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, unless we can find out a way quickly, we can close this discussion (since this a minor issue and not going to affect this GA review) and put in task list/discussion list for next days! --Tito Dutta ✉ 23:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree! VanischenumTalk 23:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this discussion as  Inconclusive --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section 03 Lead

[edit]

I am creating a separate section for Lead, since I have multiple points on this section:

First sentence
  • Importance: Med

and its birth as a sovereign nation
– If you read Preamble_to_the_Constitution_of_India, India has been described as "Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic". So why you are mentioning only "Sovereign", I tried to see in the reference you have added. But there is no preview. So, can you please help me to understand by giving a short note on it?

Sovereign is just used a as a word signifying its English meaning. It does not reflect anything from the constitution. Click the page number (147) in the citation, it would take you to the exact page. I did not add that reference, and am not sure whether it is needed at all.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright! --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Second sentence
  • Importance: High

India achieved independence following a largely peaceful civil disobedience movement led by the Indian National Congress and other political parties.
– 1) Well, umm, I don't think all credit should be given to peaceful civil disobedience movement and Indian National Congress (of course, I agree their role was very significant in Indian freedom movement, still...) 2) other political parties– this part is confusing, you are saying "peaceful civil disobedience movement"– can you mention two more political parties other than Indian National Congress (specially M.K.Gandhi's leadership) who helped India to achieve freedom by peaceful civil disobedience movements? For the second point I am tagging this issue as "highly important", I may change it later!

Now you are entering a part of the history which has been discussed time and again in many related articles. Of course INC was not the only agent of the independence movement, but in most global secondary and tertiary sources, Revolutionary movement for Indian independence has been given trivial coverage compared to the mainstream Congress and Muslim League etc. That is why INC is mentioned in the lead (now the lead has a link to Indian independence movement as well). In the first paragraph of History section (now expanded), wordings have been changed. I chose this wording as it is already tested and considered acceptable by the community (from India article).
I have removed "other political parties" from lead; added Muslim League in the first paragraph of history section.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Communal riot
  • Importance: Med

the partition was stricken with violent communal riot. Communal riot after independence– has been mentioned twice in the article (lead section and history section)– both unsourced!
--Tito Dutta ✉ 16:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference added.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence
  • Importance: Low

India celebrates Independence Day on 15 August to commemorate its independence from British rule and its birth as a sovereign nation on 15 August 1947. – Can you rewrite the sentence? Hints/Reason: you can change the starting from India celebrates Independence Day on 15 August to Independence Day in India is celebrated on 15 August every year... 2) Also, "India celebrates Independence Day on 15 August"– is not best way to write it, I think. It is not optional that they don't have an option to choose a day (I do not know any country who celebrate(s) independence day on any other day other than their real independence day). --Tito Dutta ✉ 20:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the sentence was like what you suggest even yesterday; somebody changed it today. I am changing it back to the previous form. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Section 04 See also

[edit]
Independence Day (Pakistan)

Since the article on Independence Day (Pakistan) shares some history and differs only in a matter of few hours, including a link to it might be useful. (suggestion) VanischenumTalk 09:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added "See also" section, listed Pakistan's Independence Day there.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section 05 Other issues

[edit]
Muslim League

This is in section "History". A disambiguated link of Muslim League is present in its first subsection. So disambiguating the first (and delinking the second if necessary) might help.VanischenumTalk 09:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed this wikilink issue.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ramparts

It is a disambiguation page. Defensive wall is the appropriate article within Wikipedia, but it does not even contain the word "Rampart" in its contents. (Wiktionary, also has a meaningful one.)VanischenumTalk 09:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC) modified on 10:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ramparts now wikilinks to defensive wall.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to this review Vanischenu! Excellent points. I have added your name as Guest reviewer at the top of this page! --Tito Dutta ✉ 10:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, excellent points. It seems you are reading the article really minutely. That's great. Please tell us here any other concerns you have. And, welcome to the review. Happy editing!--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! VanischenumTalk 20:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Parade→ parade

In infobox (Celebration parameter), change Parade→ parade (first letter small, not beginning of a sentence) --Tito Dutta ✉ 10:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
External links

All those images of desicolours article are in Commons! I think this link will not pass WP:ELNO --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed that external link.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Add at least one EL (Government documents will be preferred). The section is empty now) --Tito Dutta ✉ 17:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added one from Indian Government website! Replace it if you find something better! --Tito Dutta ✉ 17:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok for now. Technically the section was not empty as it had the template for link to Commons content. Anyway, will add something if we come across something worth. Having few external links is not a problem IMO.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Template:Commons_category#Location! We can not create a section with only Commons template! --Tito Dutta ✉ 17:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added one more from Encyclopædia Britannica. I also found this site http://independenceday.nic.in/ but, there is a malware warning in that site currently! --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the addition of the Britannica link. Yes, that nic site has malware notice. Also, thanks for giving that policy link on Commons category location. That's enlightening.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
National/national
  • Importance: Med

Here I am requesting to concentrate! For "national flag" "national holdiay" you are using "n", for national anthem you are using "N". Also for National Anthem you have linked Indian National Anthem once (in infobox) and Jana Gana Mana once (in celebration section)– both redirect to same article. If I overlook WP:OVERLINK, still I feel we should not link it in two different ways! --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ensured the use on small case in all instances (avoided sporadic use of Flag, Anthem etc); corrected wikilink for national anthem -- in both instances it now links to Jana Gana Mana. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed
Citation provided.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plural form
  • Importance: Low
  • Change Cinema --to--> Cinemas in the last sentence of lead.
Several books and cinema feature the independence and partition as pivotal events in their narrative.

VanischenumTalk 03:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to plural form. BPositive (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink
Added the wikilink. BPositive (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
Have done this. I've followed a different format from that of Rabindranath Tagore article. Please have a look at it and recommend any changes. BPositive (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section 06

[edit]
Flickr bad image confusion
  • Importance: Med

About this image File:Independence arunachal male marchpast.jpg Ahinsajain/rajkumar1220 is tagged here: commons:Commons:Questionable_Flickr_images#Flickr_users! You need to double check that whether this Flickr user truly owns copyright of this image. --Tito Dutta ✉ 12:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the image by this blacklisted FlickR user. I have requested in Commons for a review of the user, as many of his photographs can be valuable in the encyclopedia.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gallery image alt
Removed the gallery (this is a practice severely discouraged in FACs). Provided alt text for the Times of India front page image which is now placed in History section.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gallery section is discouraged in FAs, who said? WP:Galleries says, "However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." So, what was the issue here? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 12:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! That is a nice guideline Karthik has pointed out. Actually from past experience (well, several years ago), I sort of remembered discouragement of gallery. However, with this guideline present, we can easily incorporate appropriate images in the gallery section. Sorry for my folly. In case this point is raised in future FAC, we can direct the attention of reviewers to this guideline. Thanks Karthik.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, anyways things looks better still :) -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 15:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Original research template
  • Importance: Low

Solve Original research issue here

Nice catch. Changed the text. Have a look. I think it is solved.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Caption
  • Importance: Low

File:Mountbatten addressing the Independence Day session of the Constituent Assembly on Aug 15, 1947.jpg change date format in caption to DMY --Tito Dutta ✉ 16:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image removed for now.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TOI image caption– Front page of The Times of India on 16 August 1947 –no, it is 15 August Newspaper! Zoom in the image to read date. Since India had her freedom at midnight (the ceremony was about to start from 11 PM of 14 August or so), so most of the newspapers covered 15 August’s freedom news on 15 August. If you think the date is wrong there, tell me, I have to move the file. --Tito Dutta ✉ 11:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, changed to 15 August.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Date fmt
  • Importance: Low

In external link section this template is added, {{Use mdy dates|date=August 2010}}, you are using dmy dates! --Tito Dutta ✉ 12:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 12:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great! --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bandh
  • Importance: Low

Separatist residents have boycotted the Independence Day celebration in Jammu and Kashmir, sometimes with bandh (strike) and use of black flags. – what is separatist residents? It is self explanatory? Sometimes? --Tito Dutta ✉ 12:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has wikilinked Separatist now, hence looks fine now?? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 12:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Security threat' section, the sentence now reads "Separatist protesters have boycotted the Independence Day celebration in Jammu and Kashmir with bandh (strike), use of black flags and even by burning the Indian national flag". I guess this is more specific.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Government/government?
  • Importance: Low

1) The British government announced on 3 June 1947 2) that the British Government would grant full self government to British India 3) India was accepted by the British Government 4) are conducted by government etc! – browser's find option with match case will help to find all quickly! --Tito Dutta ✉ 12:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Changed to government. BPositive (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 16 Unreliable source
  • Importance: Low

Someone has tagged ref 16 as possible unreliable source (see here. It needs to be solved! --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed that source. The citation that is now present at the end of that sentence pretty much covers individual states all in one article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section 07

[edit]
We are approaching the end


Nopes, checkYPicture abhi zyada baki nahi hain, mere dost
Slowly and steadily, we are now heading towards the end of this review. If everything goes well, I hope to finish this review in this month i.e. 31 July (maximum, actually, I planned to finish the review within 29 July, anyway...) (Note: That does not mean, the article has passed in the review already, it may fail too, I just can't say anything before final assessment). The only reason to mention the date here is I can't close the review if a discussion is going on here (specially if it started by someone else). Though it is not mandatory, if possible try to finish all ongoing discussions within July 30. In case it is not possible, I can wait for few more days. Let me know if it is needed or if you have any question or comment!--Tito Dutta ✉ 14:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment

I think all concerns of high and medium (and even low) importance have been addressed, as of now. There is no dispute regarding points raised in this superb review.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

203
  • Importance: Low

but tempered by the bloody partition of the subcontinent into two states: India and Pakistan.[1]:203– what is "203" here? Seems a formatting error! Is it? --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many. I think it denotes page number as [1] is a ref for many sentences. Doesn't it? VanischenumTalk 14:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might be! I am curious to learn too. But, mentioning page number without mentioning book name and author does not make sense! --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has broken recently while changing template to cite book! --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait guys, this one is normal as per the Template:Rp. This is used when a reference book is used twice but the page numbers need to be cited is different. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 16:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is nothing broken or malfunctioning. As Karthik has told, it is the template rp, which is used if the same book is used more than once as reference but utilizing different pages or page ranges.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Rp#Warning This template should not be used unless necessary.– now necessity is a philosophical term! In ref 1 you have used rp template which has been used 4 times in the article. There are few more refs which have been used twice/thrice! From a general reader's point of view something like ".[1]:167" does not make sense, specially when the word "page" is not mentioned too. --Tito Dutta ✉ 21:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
in this particular case (book by Metcalf), using rp the plate is necessary, as different pages of the book is used in diffent sentences. Other references that are used multiple times do not need rp template since the same page/webpage is used.
Are you referring to any of these books 1 or 2 (found through google book search using isbn)? What about using the sfn citation like this one. It will remove the page numbers from text. -VanischenumTalk 09:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either sfn or cite book/cite web style is acceptable. But whatever style we use, that has to be used consistently in a given article. This article uses cite book templates consistently. It will take great amount of resource to convert them to sfn style throughout the article. So we are sticking to the cite book style. Appearance of such page numbers within the the text is technically acceptable, and not a problem.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references section does look good with sfn and I've seen this on many featured articles as well. But as Dwaipayan said, this will take a lot of time and resources. Perhaps, this can be done later. The references are consistent as of now and I don't see any problem. We can work on sfn later :) BPositive (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work in sandbox Vanischenu.--Tito Dutta ✉ 15:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image position
  • Importance: Low

Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left – MOS:IMAGES, if possible, place at least one image at left side of the article (not image at the beginning of a section)! --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But probably those are not mandatory unless there are many number of images in an article, which is not a concern here. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 15:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes, this is not mandatory. If we eventually have multiple images in a section (I wish we had), we shall do this. We have two images in "immediate background" subsection of history, but I think making the second image left aligned won't look good as the size of text is not so large.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Displaying flag
  • Importance: Low

Citizens rejoice the day with varied activities such as displaying the national flag, (Lead) – displaying flag– where? Or better "hoisting flag"? --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it cant be hosting flag, as all does not. We can write them as, Citizens rejoice the day with varied activities such as displaying the national flag in their shirts, cars, houses, etc., tho we need a source for this one. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 15:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately the source used in the "celebration" section to support the corresponding sentence has description how different sized flags are used in cloths, cars, fridges etc. I have detailed that in "celebration" section, and accordingly expanded the sentence in the lead. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling
Changed paralyzing → paralysing and disobidience → disobedience. Not sure about usage of afterward or afterwards. Confused. Hence rephrased the sentence. Have a look at it. BPositive (talk) 06:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did some further shortening of the sentence. I have actually started an attempt in copyedit inspired by wp:1a, which is an excellent writing resource, although quite difficult to follow, particularly by us whose first language is not English.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Looks fine to me. BPositive (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 47 page number
  • Importance: Low

In this book currently pp. 1–47. has been referred! Please recheck if all pages between 1–47 are needed here, specially when you have two more sources in support. --Tito Dutta ✉ 21:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, probably yes, though the book is not available for preview. The books only concentrates on films related to partition, and so, better to remove the page no's as we aren't sure. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The book is available for preview. After previewing, I searched for keyword "paucity" inside the book. I got a hit on page no. 48. Check this out. BPositive (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the preview may or may not be avialable for,preview based on your geographic location. That was a nice search BPositive! I think,the page 121 describes the paucity most specifically. We will change the page number in citation.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Fine. BPositive (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section 08

[edit]
Who
  • Importance: Low

There is a "Who" template added in the article. Please fix it! --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

avoided the scope of "who" template by changing the structure of the sentence. The sentence is a statement now, supported by three citations.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried my best to search who those scholars were. Ref no. 47 indicates it might be Yash Chopra (one of them). But again, not sure. Good catch Karthik and well re-phrased by Dwaipayanc. BPositive (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one cited book is by Bhaskar Sarkar, a scholar on films. His book is specifically on films related to partition. Anyway we have restructured the sentence to avoid the need of naming the scholars.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Message @ Vanischenu

Generally first reviewer is suggested to do the final assessment. But, after seeing your brilliant work in this review, I am interested to slightly break this rule. Please go ahead and do the final assessment (7. Overall assessment) in the table below. I'll add comment and do the other works after that! --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tito for your kindness and encouragement. In honor of your command, I will attempt to do it. You have made this review a super one. Vanischenu『m/Talk』 16:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section XX

[edit]
Great! Thanks for all three jobs. Looks fine.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice addition; thank you once again.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section XY

[edit]
Citation style
Well, this idea has been making rounds in my head for the past week.However, probably I am going to do the converse. Rather than converting all the references to harvnb or sfn, it would take much less resource to convert a few of harvnb (that are present in the article) to usual cite book. The important point is consistency; if we stick to one style, that is ok.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly consistency is important– currently it is mixed up– if you are going to use cite book for all, can you do it now? I can help here if you want! --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No Harvnb or sfn anymore, all are cite book, cite journal, cite web, cite news etc. There exist a few discrepancies (minor, such the use of "the"), but that should not be a problem for GA criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great! --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Section improvement
  • Importance: High
  • Modify/Rewrite "Popular Culture" section– there are many books, films portraying 1947 independence day. I have not seen Gandhi, but that article's plot section tells– the film is on Gandhis' life The film begins with Gandhi's assassination on 30 January 1948, Same issue with Jinnah The film follows the life of Jinnah. This might be a confusing point here, since there is a separate article on Partition of India. "Gadar: Ek Prem Katha"– I am not sure how this got entry. I have not seen Pinjar. You can include Chinnamul, one of the very first realistic Bengali film. --Tito Dutta ✉ 23:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also mention poems. There are some very nice Urdu, Hindi etc poems on Indian independence day (eg. Faiz Ahmad's Ye daag daag ujala, Ye shabgajida sahar) --Tito Dutta ✉ 23:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the films Gandhi and Jinnah, the sentence goes, "Academy Award winning Gandhi (1982), Jinnah (1998), Earth (1998), Hey Ram (2000), Gadar: Ek Prem Katha (2001), Pinjar (2003) are cinemas that portray the independence and partition as major events in their screenplay.". I had to really think hard while writing this sentence. Not all these films have the first Independence Day or Partition has the main event; but those events play major role in their screenplay. May be toning down from major to significant will be more acceptable.
Help needed for poems!! Not much idea. I will look up some good articles that discusses literature related to I-Day and partition. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In Subhas Chandra Bose article there is same problem, they have mentioned only one book as 'Book on Bose" (Artistic). See it here. There are many depictions on Bose (starting from Pather Dabi most probably).
Here too we are confused on what should be included and what not! Currently the section is not well written!
Gadar etc may be related to partition of India (Gadar is more a romantic action drama ek prem katha, but does not really portray Indian independence day. And you'll find lots of Hindi, Bengali films portraying Indian independence, partition etc (same theme which you can find in Pinjar etc). Have you read Faiz Ahmad's poem mentioned above? --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have started working on this section. Have found several scholarly articles, but have not been able to go through all of those. One theme gradually coming out is partition and independence have not featured much in Indian cinemas (considering the magnitude of the events). I have mentioned that already in the article. Will add further info on films, and modify text accordingly. Literature is relatively better sourced. Some references will have subscription required template though.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I went through substantial amount of data (of course there is more out there). The names of films included in the article are based on reference from scholarly articles (appropriately cited) and content of those films; the three biopics and the end does not contain refs as the sentence describing those, IMO, is non-contentious.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work! Truly! --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't go too fast

[edit]

Hello all, seeing the assessment table i thought i should say that we should take our time with this article.This is a collaboration ,so more people would want to join in, and that too for August.So we should wait at least till 5-6, may be the article gets improved to the FA level by 15th.Of course, it is all based on the assumption that people working here were going too fast and if they weren't then no problem.Also, I would like to point that i had also commented in support of Independence Day here and there were more comments on both the nominations.Is it a procedure or something else to count the earliest votes only? --Ayanosh (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Also why is the preamble to the constitution in the see also section?Why not the constitution itself if you want something but even that i am not too sure about.--Ayanosh (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please cut paste this talk in GA review page or at least bottom of the talk page, but don't keep on the top of the GA review! --Tito Dutta ✉ 09:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not wait merely for more participation. This is GE review. Once that is done, more sustained collboration will continue for preparation of FA candidacy or during FA candidacy. Important is our goal. Our goal is to reach the best possible level on or before 15 August this year. If we wait for 5-6 days without any reason pertaining to the quality of teh article, we would lose valuable time. All reviews (GA, FA etc) take time.
So, the GA review will continue at its usual and currene pace, so that GA status is definitely achieved ASAP. And then we can start preparing for/ go for FA candidacy. All teh while, any edits/comments by any user will be extremely valuable. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dwaipayan completely. Yes, it is a collaboration. But we also have a goal in mind. If the article is good enough for GAN, no harm in nominating it. It'll be ok if we get this passed by 10th of August as well and then focus on FA. BPositive (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10th August, well it is too demanding. I'll just request Titodutta to take his time as the article is still undergoing expansion every now and then. And yeah, let this review be fair enough and no longer be associated to the collaboration process to make it a bit neutral. Great work all :), way to go \m/ -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 14:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that this must be the goal of the editors and not the reviewers. And yes, agree with you. Let this be a neutral one. Seeing the discussions so far and the work done on this page itself, it appears more than neutral to me. Cheers, BPositive (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stability

[edit]

Just in case if anyone doubts the stability of the article, the article very much stable with no edit warring. It's just that editors are trying their level best to improve the quality of the article. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 16:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yes, I understand! Wikipedia is always "work in progress"! --Tito Dutta ✉ 17:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Section ZZ Assessment table

[edit]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. There were some minor problems which have been solved (see discussions above), is clear and concise! --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Material and information in this article have been attributed to reliable published source. Assessment result, currently on hold --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright! --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:31, 29 July 2012 (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). The article provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2c. it contains no original research. Alright --Tito Dutta ✉ 21:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). The article has been split into sections, lead provides summary of the article and it stays focused on the topic. --Tito Dutta ✉ 12:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. This version of the article follows Wikipedia:Neutral point of view guidelines. There is not any biased information in the article. --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. The article is stable, I got no evidence of a content dispute going back a month, and no edit warring. --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Since there are only few images in current version of the article, I better discuss in details:

This has been discussed above and currently this image has been removed! --Tito Dutta ✉ 12:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is not any copyrighted fair use image. So fair use rationales not applicable.

Assessment
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. In this version of the article, images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. The captions clearly identify the subject of the picture. --Tito Dutta ✉ 12:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment. The assessment is complete and done well. This article matches the criteria for GA in all respects and hence I agree with passing the article to GA status. Vanischenu『m/Talk』 16:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! --Tito Dutta ✉ 17:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last words

[edit]

Thanks for all your superb work and fantastic co-operation in this review. --Tito Dutta ✉ 17:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independence Day (India) badge
This editor is either a primary contributor of Independence Day (India) article(verify) and/or actively participated in the Good Article review discussion(verify) and is entitled to display this badge.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Independence_Day_(India)/GA1&oldid=1146787637"