Jump to content

Talk:Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha/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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 13:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well constructed, will come back within a day or two with the required improvements to be made, within a day or two. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 13:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    1. Reply (a): Prose, spelling, and grammar checked again and no issues found. I performed full spell and grammar check. Let me know if you have any specific observations.
    2. Reply (b) Lead: Checked MoS for lead section and the article is in line. If there are any specific observations then please let me know.
    3. Reply (b) Layout: Article has recommended layout of Infobox -> Lead section -> Table of contents -> Content -> See also -> References (I have not provided any notes, so only references are present) -> Navigation templates -> Categories. All the elements are in recommended order.
    I would suggest a history section containg information about formation of the post, transformation through years etc. because this is one of the most important postions in a democratic country like India. I suggest this only if it is possible i.e. if sources are available. Try searching some,
    Reply: Good point. Let me see what I can do. I was actually expanding the article today for salary and allowances. Check it out when you have time.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    1. Reply: I am sorry but I am not sure what really is your observation with the reference? Are you suggesting the general reference style to be changed ?
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    1. Reply (out of scope): I am sorry but pasting the shortcut of entire policy pages does not really help me understand the issue. Please understand my point, that by this time I have read MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, lists, reference section, major aspects and focused. Please be specific with the issues. I dont see the article going away from topic of losing focus. It will be really helpful for me to improve the content if you point out the specifics.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Additional suggestions
  • I would also recommend a section regarding the suspension of the members. Please have a look at this source.
  • Reply: Good suggestion but that has little to do with Member of Parliament and more to do with Rule 374A. On top of this, there are code of conduct from election commission, IPC and whole lot of other rules, which if we start adding, will have no end. I have only covered the provisions under the constitution of India (specific article).
Reply: I know it is long one, please see my suggestion on talk page of the article. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 04:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence in the lead is the representative of the Indian voters to the Lok Sabha could be is the representative of the Indian voters of a specific constituency to the Lok Sabha or something like that. I suggest this because as the per the previous sentence, a general reader may get an idea that the member represents the whole Indian voters which is false. Try to reword it to avoid confusion.
  • Reply: Actually, a Lok Sabha member does not necessarily belong to a specific constituency. There are appointed Lok Sabha members also (anglo-Indians) who represent the Indian voters but are not tied to any specific constituency.
Reply: I agree with you, but a general reader may get an idea that a MP will represent the whole India which is wrong. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 04:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of lead reads: The majority party in the Lok Sabha chooses the Prime Minister of India., consider wording it as The party holding the majority number of seats in the Lok Sabha chooses the Prime Minister of India, in most cases the leader of the party. or in the way as you wish it to be.
  • Reply: Good observation. However, a majority party might not be the one in power. Remember the classic case of 11th Lok Sabha where BJP had the majority number of seats (single largest party) and government survived only 16 days. It was then, H. D. Deve Gowda who became the PM despite his party having lesser seats.
Reply: Then it might be like The party or alliance that secures a majority of vote confidence (not less that 272) from the members in the Lok Sabha chooses the Prime Minister of India, in most cases the leader of the party. This sentence can be referenced with [1]
  • The title of 3rd section would be better if it is Eligibility condition for being a Member of Parliament instead of what it is now, and in the same section I have observed a ; at the end of each section. I don't whether they are required instead of a full stop (.).
  • Reply: Heading changed and the semicolon replaced with full stop.
  • Please add some introductory sentences to Section 5.1 6.1
  • Reply: Will do. Valid point.
Please work on the improvements I suggested till now while I suggest further, if required. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 15:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
16 July 2016
  • In the responsibilities section, the first bullet; Legislative responsibility, the parliament has the responsibility to pass the laws, but the members do not necessarily have to pass them, they just discuss the pros and cons of the proposed law or amendment. Also the fourth bullet; Power of the purse responsibility, a member may approve or refuse the revenues and expenditures, not compulsorily approve, it depends on the member. Also adjust the full stop at the end of this point.
  • Reply. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, all laws have to be passed by MP, thats the ultimate objective. Same goes for revenues and expenditures. Check the source. These are the responsibilities as stated in the source. We cannot include any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources (read WP:OR).
  • In section 6, bullet 4; the sentence may be The maximum permitted strength is 552 members. In the same section, add a sub-heading something like Constitutional statement before the quote.

Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 04:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AKS.9955: Salary section is good. Did you look at the suggestion for suspension section on the talk page, and also see the replies above. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 02:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AKS.9955: It is just two more days for a week since I have started the review. Please respond fast, so that we can patch up the review as soon as possible. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AKS.9955: Thanks for responding. Please ping me once you're done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga:, Just wanted to let you know that I have added new section as you asked me to. There is very little work left on the article and this week I should be able to close out all the points. Sorry for the delay but I need some undivided attention to complete this and work has kept me busy. Will keep you posted. Thanks for your patience. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AKS.9955: It is almost three weeks since the start, are you done with improving? If so, I shall review it. Consider having a look at suggestion for suspension section on the talk page. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AKS.9955: Is your work complete? It is almost 30 days since I have started the review, and also there are also edits from for past 10 days? Please give me the status. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga:, actually I was bit confused with your actions. Firstly you wanted to finish the GA review with a deadline, then when we communicated and I told you that I will finish the review by one Sunday (and you agreed), the next day you failed the nomination and then after 4 days you opened it again and put it on hold. So please let me know how do you want to proceed? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AKS.9955: I don't know why this happened. But I never failed the GA. I put it on hold last week, and now this message that's it. I have seen your talk page now, and was surprised to see the failed message, it must an error by the bot. I never failed the nomination. If you want to confirm, check the talk page history. Unaware of what happened, I was thinking that no edits have been done, since the Sunday as we have agreed, so I posted this message. You could've contacted me then itself regarding the failure. Anyway, the nomination is still open, and I'll wait. Just wanted to know whether you're on it or not? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga:, Yeah, even I was confused and did not know whats happening. Anyway, I will close it out by this weekend. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was the bot that was confused. What happened is that the article itself was moved (the word "parliament" was capitalized) but this page wasn't, so the bot couldn't find the review page any more and thought the nomination had been failed somehow, which is why it sent the message. When I saw the problem, I moved this page to the new name, so the bot could find the review page, but the message couldn't be recalled. Everything is set now. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I'm not sure what stage this review is at, but personally I am of the opinion that the grammar is not up to GA standard, and I would recommend that the article be sent to the WP:GOCE for copy-editing before it is passed. Vanamonde (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Vanadmonde here; the article does need a copyedit. I also thing that it has way too many lists and bullets; more of the article should be in actual prose. The use of the word "strength" for the size of the Lok Sabha seems a bit odd: it's the maximum size, or the maximum number of members. The GOCE currently has a longer backup than usual; most nominations are waiting over a month, with several still waiting from August. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset, Vanamonde93, and AKS.9955: The review is closing to 2 months within 10 days. I think suggestions from Vanamonde and BlueMoonset are must be considered. The article needs a ce from GOCE and the issue dealt by Moonset about tables and bullets must be dealt. My suggestion on the talk page also remains unanswered. For now, I am failing the nomination, and after the ce was complete and improvements done, I welcome AKS to renominate it. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Member_of_Parliament,_Lok_Sabha/GA1&oldid=1136368166"