Talk:President of India/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ssriram mt (talk · contribs) 01:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC) I would take up the review of the article.[reply]

Initial points

I was tempted to fast fail mainly because of the following

lot of grammatical errors - ex. "Juridical"
ref structure is not uniform - some references lack basic parameters
lot of incomplete sentences lacking full information like " receive INR10,000 (US$200) per month as per the Constitution" - when?, " It has never been declared" - from when?
why so many sentence breaks - every sentence is a para is some cases.
overall copy-edit - need to have uniform style.
images lack alt.

I will leave one week for improvement. Ssriram mt (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Done. But i think juridical is a correct term.(pl.ref to dictionary and the article president of USA) Suri 100 (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still not done - Universal's Guide to the Constitution of India, Commonwealth Secretariat" and some other short citations have missing parms. "Juridical" part - check here. US and Indian presidential systems are totally different - just that they are democracies.Ssriram mt (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific in telling what parameters are missing in the ref such as the ref you mentioned above? So change the word Juridicial to Judicial? Suri 100 (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain references which lack basic parameters like title, accessdate, date, location (for news), author, isbn (for books), volume(for journals). I think some of the references are still not using standard templates - ref no.s 13, 28,29(pg instead of p in others), 32,34,39, 49 53,57,63,64,67,70,71,72,. Ref 47 is not reliable.Ssriram mt (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very painstakingly fixed to some extent. Suri 100 (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note that all websites do not publish information,such as publishers name etc,. Suri 100 (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC). I tried to find them but couldnt.Suri 100 (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check Wikipedia:Reliable sources - there are quite a few unreliable ones quoted as source. Also the basic parameters highlighted above are still missing in some. Once alternate reliable refs are placed, i will start the section-wise review.Ssriram mt (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Suri 100 (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - refs 3,4,7 are unreliable - also try to avoid text books as sources. ref universal, news item on zeenews lack parms. Take your time to make changes - there is no rush. I will also see if i can improve the article.Ssriram mt (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK :D .Suri 100 (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are way too many ref fixes that would be needed. Books - last,first parameter, title, isbn, pages; news - date, publisher; web - accessdate, publisher. There are lot of duplicate and unreliable references - short citation style would be needed - refer Wikipedia:Citations#Short_citations. I will leave the article in hold status to see improvements.Ssriram mt (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, although it is good go have well-formatted references, that is not a part of Wikipedia:Good article criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But MOS criteria covers this - Wikipedia:CITE#General_references. I seek addition of basic ref parms and removal of duplicate references.Ssriram mt (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can help with ref formatting, but before that the issue of reliability needs to be sorted out. Please replace unreliable sources first.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is the plan. I will go over all the references. Meanwhile, the nominator should address all the other issues raised by the reviewer (which are much more important). It would take me several days. Please do not change anything in the present references, unless I ask for something, and except if you want to replace some unreliable sources.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK.Suri 100 (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went over the references, rater quickly. I saw them only for technical purpose, not for the quality, although a few times I added tags. After the initial some examples, I did not address the references that were from school level text books, those need to be changed. Also, I did not address some references that were from Pratiyogita Darpan or Upakar Prakashan (same). I am not sure if Pratiyogita Darpan would be considered as reliable source.

Vakilno1 will not be a reliable source, replace that. I have added some other tags, such as page needed. Please address those. Also, one reference (interview of a president in Doordarshan, published by The Hindu). I was unsure of its format, so kept it as it is, for now.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the content of the act published by vaikono.1 is from mha(Ministry of home affairs)Suri 100 (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already Done.Suri 100 (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still, this vakilno1 site seems unreliable. You can directly use the act as a source. Text of such acts should be available in Law Ministry website. See this.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The unreliable/missing parms of the ref structure still remains. Dwaipayan & Suri - how do you want to take this - I prefer the article be reworked off the review as it is already 10 days from the point of hold. I see lot of improvements, but it still needs quite more. Ssriram mt (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking this article off GA review. Ssriram mt (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.