Talk:The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TheSpecialUser (talk · contribs) 19:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be writing a review shortly. Thanks! →TSU ^tp* 19:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. theTigerKing 19:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend holding off on any GA review, given that I will be pushing extremely hard to, at a minimum, merge this content into the previously existing Jan Lokpal Bill or, more likely, simply redirect this there as a certain WP:CONTENTFORK and likely WP:POVFORK. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why GA review should be put on hold. If there is one, please enlighten everyone with the plausible reasons. And yes, I have already put up my views in the talk page of the The Lokpal Bill, 2011. I would be obliged to contest your other claims as well.theTigerKing 12:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I m holding this for 1 week. If User:Qwyrxian believes that it should be re-directed or merged then please do propose it on the article and if wants it to be deleted then go for AfD. After the span of 1 week, I'll start the review and also this is very very (extremely) less likely to be merged or redirected because this totally differs from Jan version. This is a different proposal formulated by different people and there is no reason to merge according to me. →TSU ^tp* 14:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Not worth my time. I'll take the page off my watchlist, but consider this as you ponder a GA review: Wikipedia does not usually have articles on individual drafts of proposed laws. Instead, we have one article on the final, passed version of a law, with sections in that article briefly covering the legislative history. I also strongly caution the reviewer when reading the sources: many of the sources may not refer to this particular draft, because the Indian press is not regularly careful about distinguishing between different versions, and just because an article talks about the "Lokpal Bill" doesn't mean they aren't talking about the "Jan Lokpal Bill". Finally, let me state that if this law does not pass, it should be merged into one omnibus article about all draft versions. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with your last line Qwyrxian. But, I am confident that something like this is not going to happen ever, whatever the final outcome of the bill be - passed into a law or not. theTigerKing 20:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Lets start slow. I'll raise minor concerns first and then will move to bigger.

Please add WP:ALT to images. Already done

Question: I just verified that all the images used in the article are having alt property in them.

In "Eight and Ninth Draft Meets" sub-section, there is a clooapse box. Please remove the collapse and let the table be open as we want it simpler and not complicated. Normally collpaose is not used in article as it looks odd at articles.

Done

"External links" - this consists of so many links about lokayuktas. This is not proper and nor of use. Right now, none of the links are relavent like other articles have so remove all of those and find or add a centralized link.

Done The Lokayukta section now appropriately put up in See Also Section.

"See also" section should be moved to above "Notes" section.

Done

Response for GA Review by theTigerKing 19:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC) →TSU ^tp* 05:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Failure

I never had a good look at the article but now as I have done it, this is a quick fail. Here are few reasons for it:

The 1st paragraph in the lead is no where near neutral and is also unsourced

The references have been mentioned in the infobox. Hence, I found no reason why it should be included in tne first paragraph. Please explain "near neutrality". all the sources in the lead section are either of respected journals or official documents of government of India. Most of the featured articles hardly contain any references in the lead section. They are either provided in the infobox or in the latter parts of the article. Only those references are and have been provided in the lead section whose account has not been mentioned in the latter parts of the article. theTigerKing 16:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4th paragraph in the lead goes off-focused and off-topic

This paragraph deals with the need to have the law passed at the earliest. It also contains the latest rankings of India in the Corruption Perceptions Index and the estimates of loss because of public-corruption.Also it is no reason for quick-fail.theTigerKing 16:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is full of grammatical errors as well as copyediting is needed

Please provide the pointers for the grammatical errors. I have applied for the latter.Again, no reason for quick-fail.theTigerKing 16:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality is disputed. Many sentences are so much in favor of anti-govt. thing.

Please provide pointers for the same. There is no anti-govt. thing as such, I believe.theTigerKing 16:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Less mention about the controversies with the team anna is there.

There are already separate pages for the same(Jan Lokpal Bill, 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement) You previous point talks about being anti-govt. I had risked calling it anti-govt, had I included them in the article. Again, no reason for a quick-fail.theTigerKing 16:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refs need publisher, name of author etc.

95% of them have publisher, name of author mentioned. In certain situations, they do not contain the name of the author.(Examples->Official drafts of the bill, Some Indian News Websites(They include words like Agencies like in them.)theTigerKing 16:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links have nothing to do with this article and all of them should be removed

I believe we could have discussed them. I have mentioned the official websites of the law making agencies, the organizations whose drafts have been mentioned in the article. Again, no reason for a quick fail.theTigerKing 16:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section headings like: "Journey through The Lok Sabha" itself is causing neutrality problem

We could have discussed them. "Neutrality problem" please explain.theTigerKing 16:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but have to fail it for now →TSU ^tp* 15:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a thorough look theTigerKing 16:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality fail

Okay, I had a look again. Neutrality will still be my main reason to quick fail it. This issue can be fixed in 1 month then could be re-nominated. The source provided to the statement in the lead is a primary source. Also, if it were nor a PS, then also one should not include such statement in the lead at all. WP:LEAD should summarize the whole article and should be neutral and should be in own words.

When you are writing an article about a bill, it should not be compared like it has been done in "Eight and Ninth Draft Meets". This is clearly a copyvio of the source. The source provided says that it is from Forbes and it is not infact. It is not even a WP:RS as that page is edited by editors like us. It is WP:OR.

Section headers like: Journey through The Lok Sabha looks as if we are reading a book related to the topic not an encyclopedia.

Corruption is an emotional issue in India, where at least 12 whistle-blowers were killed and 40 assaulted after seeking information under a new Right to Information Act aimed at exposing local graft, according to data compiled by Bloomberg L.P. from January 2010 through mid-October 2011. - focus failed

Lead should not introduce new topics and should contain some details of every content-section in the article. Sorry, but it has failed now. I'd like advise that seek help from someone who is active in GAs and then go for a nom after 2-3 weeks after addressing the issues. You can even ask me if you want me to make this article better (I have 2 GAs and 3 are just about to get GA status). →TSU ^tp* 03:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]