Wikipedia:Featured article review/Economy of India/archive1

Economy of India

Article is still a featured article

Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics/BEF, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics/Version 1.0 assesment/Featured content. Sandy 14:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India. Sandy 00:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Needs references (2c). Prose could do with a run-through. Stats and qualitative information could be updated for such a fast-changing topic. Tony 13:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Update:I have updated a few stats. I have also added many refs making the total refs in the article as 71. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Update. I have updated the statistics. Couldn't find any qualitative information that has changed so much as to deserve a mention in the article or get removed from the article. The article, as of now, has 73 inline references, in addition to many more overall references. I believe this was what was asked of from this FAR. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Good work, Ambuj. I'm copy-editing it. Tony 14:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC) PS The prose clearly fails Criterion 2a. If I weren't copy-editing it, I'd be FARCing it. I'll need some assistance where the economics/stats are unclear. Tony 14:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I was wondering why I still haven't heard that :P. Anyway, I am keeping a watch on your edits and will clarify any doubts once you are finished editing (so as to not get an edit conflict). — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• If Tony's editing it and Ambuj is updating, I don't think there should be too much of a problem anymore. The maps and diagrams should ideally be converted to svg. If higher res images are available, we could replace these. --Nichalp

• I looks crowded on a 15 inch monitor with the tables and images, could some be left aligned to break up the mass of illustrations on the right?--Peta 05:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I tried to juggle the pics around a touch. Marskell 16:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Status: Does this one need to go down to FARC? Here is the dif showing the work that's been done. Marskell 08:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've nearly finished copy-editing it. I'm not entirely happy with the depth and scope. Maybe it just passes at the moment, but others may want to comment on that. I think it should be updated and tweaked regularly, given the changing nature of India's economy. PS There are still unaddressed inline queries. Who will address them? I'll contact some of the original contributors. Tony 10:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm delighted that already some of the contributors I contacted are weighing in. This article really does need guardians to update it regularly. On a more negative note, the more I read, the more I see lacking (Criterion 2b). You can't really summarise an article on a country's economy without mention of how micro- and macro-economic management have developed. We need mention of the interest-rate policies in India over the years; I mean, who sets interest rates? The government or the central bank? And I find the section on currency extremely superficial. I corrected—from general knowledge—a mistake about pegged external currencies, but we need to know about convertibility of the rupee, and to be given an idea of inflation and exchange rates over the years. I think this is readily recoverable from the CIA World Factbook on the net (surprisingly, an authoritative source). I'm not an economist, and not Indian, so I hope that the contributors will beef up these aspects. They're kind of ... basic. PS Elsewhere, I see fuzzy statements, such as "India holds second position in the world in roadways' construction, more than twice that of China." In terms of what? The number of kilometres of paved road? Better per capita if it can be found, but whatever it is, it must be specified in precise terms. More is required in "Physical infrastructure".

For this not to move to FARC, I think the reviewers here will need to be satisfied that the article has a few "friends", and that these areas are covered. Give it four or five days? Tony 00:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The last section (Foreign direct investment in India) needs references. Sandy 22:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've taken care of the some of the embedded comments. Please see if the section needs additional references, Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are references (2c), prose (2a), and whether the article is up-to-date (2b). Marskell 06:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment—Great to see the increased activity here. On the info box:
  • Why a separate box for "current fiscal year"? Isn't it obvious from the previous one?
  • What is "Union budget"?
  • The default year might be at the top somewhere, rather than stuck down in a little grey box at the bottom: it's kind of important.
  • Prime Minister and Chariman of ...
  • "Mostly unfree" under "Index of economic freedom"—Is this elaborated on somewhere in the article? Is it POV? Should it be referenced somewhere?
  • "GDP per capita"—Is this PPP? Same for the "by sector".
  • "Exports"—no year.

Thanks. Tony 05:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Tony 03:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sandy 05:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I missed parts of the earlier discussion, but am now confident of the article's quality. I have also addressed some of the concerns raised by Tony in the comments above. Clarifying, though not asked for, since the "Union budget" article deals with what it is, there is no reason to clutter the infobox. "Mostly unfree" is being quoted from the source provided. Exports are of default year (as said in footnotes). Other concerns have been addressed. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. But I hope the diagrams and maps can be converted to svg. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)