Talk:Verghese Kurien/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

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

Nominator: Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs) 13:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: That Tired Tarantula (talk · contribs) 06:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article during this week. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 05:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@That Tired Tarantula Thanks for taking this up. Will address the comments as they come. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Ganesha811

• Overall, both the review and the article are in pretty good shape. Almost everything I would have commented on has already been listed below, or already been addressed. Nice work, folks! Just a few nitpicks:

• I think the lead is a little bit too long. It could probably lose 2-4 sentences and be ok; some sentences can be combined and summarized. Everything that's uncited in the lead should be found in the body somewhere, cited - his "title" as "Father of the White Revolution" is not mentioned in the body of the article.

• I think Awards sections can be an issue for neutrality. Kurien was obviously a well-awarded man; my usual standard is that any award which is notable enough for its own Wikipedia page is notable enough to be listed. The others, which are less prominent, could be removed.
• It might be interesting (if available in sources) to have a little more detail about how his co-operative model worked out with other foodstuffs as mentioned in 'Other Work'.

@Ganesha811, Thanks for the comments. Addressing the same:

1. Award section has been trimmed
2. Good spot on the FOWR statement; Added it in the body with citations
3. Trimmed the lead by combining few sentences/removing some
4. Regarding the other industries, I have expanded a bit based on what I can find on them.

Please do let me know in case of any other comments/suggestions. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Alrighty, yay! The article looks great!

To Ganesha: does the review look ready to pass and can I go ahead and close it? That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 13:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I would say so, yes; if you're confident it meets the GA standard, go ahead and close it! Incidentally, I would recommend installing User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool - it makes the process of closing nominations much easier! If you haven't used Wikipedia scripts before, I can explain how to install them in more detail. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I got the script; thanks! That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 20:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

First look

Criteria

• No maintenance templates: Y
• Relavent images are present: Y
• No recent edit wars: Y
• Nominator is a signifcant contributor: Y

Copyright

• No copyright violations/plagiarism: There's one sentence in the lead and nationwide expansion section ("In 1979, he founded the Institute of Rural Management Anand (IRMA) to groom managers for the cooperatives.") that's copied from the Hindustan Times, so it needs to be reworded. Other than that, there's no copyvios. Y
• Also, sorry, I only noticed this just now, but the third sentence in the section about Kurien's other work is copied from Lokmarg; it'll have to be reworded as well.
• Images are free (unless a rationale is given if they are not) and tagged: * Images are free (unless a rationale is given if they are not) and tagged: In the last two images' rationales (which need to be tagged as having rationales, because currently, there's a rationale given, but there's a tag on the files with instructions for adding how a rationale has been given in a template), it says that the images should be used to represent a gathering of individuals who are deceased and for whom there is no known representation under a free license, but there is an image similar to the second image in the article that is under a CC license in Commons, so using the image that is currently in the article violates fair use.

I am bit confused. If my understanding is right, as it states that "and for whom there is no known representation under a 'free' license" and there is an another image, it violates the copyright, right? So, I will remove the image and that will solve the problem?

Yes, the image needs to be replaced. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 00:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC) Y

Thanks for removing the other image; could you please add the image on Commons to the article so that it can be used instead? That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 19:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Have added the image from commons. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Prose

Broadness and focus

The article stays on topic and has in-depth coverage of its subject. Looks good

Writing and MoS

There's a couple small errors in the article, but I'll be happy to do cleanup as long as the GA passes. Everything follows MoS, but I think tha it'd be better to rename the death section to be a personal life section, since it also talks about his family and religion.

It would also be good to reformat the chart in the awards section so that way the references have their own column and to move the information in the last sentence in the section to that chart.

Neutrality

Due weight is given and there's no editorialism.

References

Evaluating sources

There's a few sources that might have problems with reliability:

• 1. Britannica is a tertiary source and there's already a secondary source providing that information, so it'll be best to just remove it. Agree it is a tertiary source, have removed it as you mentioned. Y
• 3. This is published by the article's subject.yes, it was authored by the subject and not to be used as self reference. Have provided an independent source. Y
• 17. This source isn't independent, since it was published by Kurien's company. Have provided an additional source to back up the same. Y
• 36. This is also published by the article's subject.It is the same source as #3. As there are two other independent sources, have removed it. Y
• 59. The Times of India is not considered to be reliable. If the same information from independent and more reliable sources can be found, those sources should be used instead. The Times of India is the one of the oldest and highest circulating English daily in India. Having said that, it does not mean reliability as they have advertorials, hence the WP:MREL as per WP:RSP. It might be questionable when addressing contentious subjects, but as a general news source, it is reliable and have been used in hundreds of GAs related to India. As per WP:MREL, as the instance quoted has other citations available, this does not seem to be an issue. Same with a later source for milk day (which has additional sources). If you insist, will remove the particular citation as there are two other citations for the same sentence. Thanks!

Okay. I'd prefer for this source to be replaced, but since it seems like it's alright to use in this instance, I'm fine with it staying. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 22:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• 4. The end of this article cites its sources as famouspeople.com and Wikipedia, so it shouldn't be used.

Yes, it is a good spot indeed, definitely not to be used. Have given alternate sources wherever these citations were used! Y

Citation accuracy

There's a few issues that I've noticed:

• 12. The source mentions Verghese Kurien having helped Tribhuvandas Patel but doesn't talk about the dairy equipment being modified. Added additional source + tweaked it as per source to say "fixing" Y
• 20. Where does the article mention Sardal Patel having been a home minister? Removed, fixed Y
• 21. The source mentions Kurien, but not Tribhuvandas Patel.Mentioned only Kurien, fixed Y
• 23 and 24. It could be helpful to give examples of the national interest in the dairy industry's progress from these sources. Have tweaked the sentence to explain the expansion + studies. Y
• 32. This citation mentions Amul competing against Nestle and Glaxo, but not when, so the word "later" should be removed. Removed. Y
• 38. The source does not mention the NDDB being free of government control as a condition.Modified the sentence + gave additional source. Y
• 53. The source mentions Kurien being sent to help in Sri Lanka, but doesn't mention whether or not NDDB was involved.Removed reference to NDDB there Y

Sources for these pieces of information should be found or the information should be removed.Y

Ref layout

I think that the References section could be a little easier to navigate if it had a bibliography section where the books or PDFs that are used multiple times could go and then there could still be citations to them in the references section. For example, the 11th and 14th citations would look like this:

References

Bibliography

Heredia, Ruth (1997). The Amul India Story. New Delhi: Tata Mc-Graw Hill. ISBN 978-0-07463-160-7.

The other citations to that source would be formatted the same way. The rest of the sources without specific page numbers would just go in the regular references section. Wherever there are multiple references to different pages of the same source, it has been organized as such! Y

Overall

Again, sorry for this review taking longer than usual; I'm fairly new to the review process and this is the longest article that I've reviewed so far. At this point, I think I'll put the GAR on hold so that any issues with sources can be fixed and so the ref layout can be reconfigured, but I'm going to ask for input from a more experienced reviewer before making a final decision. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 12:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@That Tired Tarantula Thanks for the detailed comments. I will work on them. Yes, the source section could be better organized as there is indeed multiple citations of the same source. Will revert when done with the changes. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@That Tired Tarantula Comments have been addressed. Do let me know in case of any other clarification/comments. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks good! The only concern I still have is that there's one sentence in the third paragraph of the other works section that's copied from Lokmarg. Once that's fixed, this article should be ready to become a GA! I'm just waiting for another reviewer for some extra input first. Anyways, looks great! That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 21:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@That Tired Tarantula It would be helpful for me to address the same if you can elaborate the last point. Your concern here is that these are based on a single source, reliability of the source or the paraphrasing? Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about copyright; I also brought it up in that section. It should be paraphrased. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 18:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@That Tired Tarantula I have rewritten the entire segment with other citations included as well. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks! That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 18:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! As part of the backlog drive, I'm happy to step in as an experienced reviewer to assist and answer questions. I'll take a detailed look through the article and review later today and make some comments, but on first spec, both look high quality! —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 18:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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.