Talk:Central Industrial Security Force Act/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 16:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to review this nomination. I notice that the nominator has not been active recently. I will post some initial feedback this week and will continue if someone responds to the feedback within a few days. Thanks to the nominator and others for the work on this entry so far. Larry Hockett (Talk) 16:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The Mukherjee Commission is introduced without much explanation. Better to briefly specify that this was a special commission appointed to investigate this specific incident. Then you can go into more detail in the body.
Done--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"force of watch and ward nature" - Just wondering whether this is a standard expression in Indian English. I haven't heard it in American English. Is there a wikilink that would be relevant here?
Done Watch and ward is commonly used in Indian English and especially in the parliament. Its use in American English has diminished, like several many old English words. I have linked it to security guard as this is the closest article I could find highlighting the meaning of the phrase.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background

This is not very easy to read because of the single paragraph. Maybe a new paragraph at "These developments ..." or the next sentence.
Done--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is just a single common word, "examination" probably doesn't need quotation marks.
Done
"strong objections were raised by the opposition parties" - What do you mean by the opposition parties? Just the members who objected? Seems redundant.
Unlike the US Congress, the Indian Parliament has more than one opposition party. "Strong objections were raised by the members of opposition parties" (changed version) means that members of many opposition parties were registering their objection to a particular clause.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amendments

The last sentence of the first paragraph reads a little funny; the first two clauses have a different structure than the last two. I think it might even be easier to break this up into more than one sentence.
Done--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1999: "credited in" - usually I see "credited to"
Done--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same sentence: "dictated by the subsection second" - second subsection?
Done--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to close this nomination for now, as there have been no edits here or to the article in the eleven days since the initial feedback was posted. With 573 articles waiting to be reviewed, it makes more sense to wait and nominate the entry again once there is an active editor to respond to feedback. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Hockett, thank you for taking up this review and providing your valuable feedback. Being a frontline worker during this ongoing pandemic, I was away from Wikipedia for too long and if it wasn't enough I spent many weeks in hospital fighting the infection. Now I am back after recuperation and would work on the article as per your suggestions.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak G Goswami - Thank you for addressing my initial concerns. Once a nomination is closed, the easiest way to proceed is to renominate it. I would consider reviewing the entry again, but another editor will likely beat me to it because I have a lot going on at the moment and I want to give your nomination the time it deserves. I haven't reviewed your references or checked for breadth of coverage, and those aspects can take quite a bit of time. Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]