Jump to content

User talk:Mkativerata/Archive2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Cameron: Second Youngest PM

Cameron is the youngest Prime Minister since Lord Liverpool since at the period of William Pitt the term Prime Minister was not used. (see William Pitt) - Johnny Beta (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The term "Prime Minister" was not used then but he was still the Prime Minister, as it says on his page. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying the situation, I apologise for the error. - Johnny Beta (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
No worries! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C. FA review

Please see my comments on your review. Tomlock01 (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, it's on my watchlist. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kenneth Braun

Hello Mkativerata. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kenneth Braun, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I don't think this meets G10 which is for a page which disparages its subject and serves no other purpose." Let the AfD take care of it. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

  • If your view is that an article commencing "X was a sexual deviant" is not an attack page, very well. I beg to differ. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    • G10 requires that the page attacks the subject and serves no other purpose. I don't think that's the case here - it could at least be argued that it is documenting a notable character. (Without having read it all up, I find myself wondering whether he wasn't primarily a fantasist rather than a deviant - I don't know how much checking Kinsey did on the stories his subjects told him). JohnCD (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
      • That's a fair interpretation of the article, but it necessitates excising the attack material from the non-attack material and deleting the former. I don't think that can be sensibly done here but happy for AfD to decide. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

DrMargi

Hello Mkativerata. This is DrMargi's friend. I want to know whether you can help us clean up the following articles because of your repo:

Your help would be appreciated. TheCleaner123 (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi Roman888, it looks like your contributions to these articles have already been superseded by other edits. So your copyright violations are no longer there. FYI, we have all of the articles you've ever contributed to on this list so we are able to go through and remove your copyright violations in a systematic manner. But thanks for your help. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, lookie who's been busy again. Will he never learn? Drmargi (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Pepper v Hart

Hey there; I think I've addressed most of the problems, if you have time to take another look? Ironholds (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just had one more point under "prose" (the fourth dot point), where I think "adequately" might now need to be "inadequately". Sorry I would have jumped in and done it myself but I'm not 100% sure so thought I'd leave it to you. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Yup; I believe I removed the point entirely (so perhaps "fixed" is the wrong word). Ironholds (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Crap, must've forgotten to remove it; now done so. Ironholds (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Nice to get further confirmation, thanks! Wikidea seems to think law articles on WP should be written for lawyers and law students, and the rest can go hang (pardon the pun). Luckily most of the wiki seems to disagree. Ironholds (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
A query; you said you had access to a law library? Do you feel like working on a G/FA with me, assuming it contains legal history texts? Ironholds (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
That sounds good. My FA and my current FA projects are both loner exercises, so it would be good to find something to collaborate on. My access to materials is obviously quite Australian-centric (as is my area of specialty), but a common law topic might bridge the divide. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
By some mysterious good fortune, I happen to own a copy of A.W.S. Simpson's history of contract law! Or if you want more modern contract law, how about an article on the theory behind it? I've got two textbooks on that. And for something present-day, I've been looking to get our article on Privity up to a standard footing with a worldwide scope, possibly even FA-quality. An aussie perspective would be very helpful, particularly since you and the Kiwis are far ahead of us in some ways (the Kiwis had a third-party contract act in place decades before we did). Ironholds (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Excellent, I'll have a look today to see what I have in the way of the history of contract law. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Smashing. Poke me if you find anything on anything, contract or no, with an international scope. I'm sure I can pull something up on the subject. Ironholds (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • That would be absolutely wonderful; while I've got a ton of sources on it, they're all up at university. Can I suggest that as a future collaboration; in the mean time, how do you feel about Rylands v Fletcher? The article is in a far worse state, I've already sketched out a draft replacement, and I note it'd be excellent in international terms; the Australians wrote some wonderful caselaw on the matter, which the British courts have alternately consulted and refused to apply. Lots of scope there, I think. Ironholds (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
    Smashing. I know some American legal contributors; it'd be interesting to see if they've followed it. Ironholds (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I've now finished the Englaw element of this doozy; feel free to chip in whenever. Ironholds (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
    Smashing, thanks. Ironholds (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
    I've just finished the Scottish section (it seems almost everyone has thrown Rylands out these days) and I'll be starting on Hong Kong and Singapore bits in a tad. Ironholds (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

George Williams (lawyer)

Per this question on my talk page could you advise whether this guy is notable from a legal standpoint? Seems so to me but I am not a regular editor or expert on legal topics. Thanks heaps. Orderinchaos 14:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that; unfortunately it seems that the article has popped up for a very specific purpose (the election) so it does seem quite promotional. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 8

The pages had already been deleted when I initiated the MfD. Cunard (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Oops, my bloody 10 hour Australian time difference between the deletion log and the MfD page mucked it around: it comes up for me that the pages were deleted 40 minutes after the MfD started. Thank you for the note, I'll amend my DRV statement accordingly. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Snitker AfD

Hey, some of Awyllie/PlainSight's sources in the above AfD appear to meet WP:N. I've listed the three I like in my revised vote near the top of the page; could you give them a look over and tell me if I'm wrong? - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

G'day there, I can't see or hear audio or video from where I access wikipedia, but if the sources are all campaign-related I tend to think they're insufficient. If a person is only notable for a political campaign, the community's consensus at WP:POLITICIAN is that the article should be redirected. I'd even go so far as to say it's a WP:BLP1E. So in these cases my view is that satisfying WP:GNG isn't enough: WP:GNG only confers a presumption of notability that can be overridden by a failure to meet more specific notability guidelines where the community has considered the inclusion of material to be undesirable. But that view is certainly open to disagreement. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I was pretty sure that it was the other way around; if you meet WP:N you meet WP:N subject only to certain ifs and buts such as those described at WP:MILL. The guidelines such as WP:POLITICIAN provide a guide to understanding WP:N, a quick guide to telling if someone is almost certainly notable to save you going to find sources, and alternate ways of establishing notability where sources can't immediately be found. That's a view backed up by the opening of the biographical notability guidelines, which you can read at WP:BASIC, and the following paragraph which includes the statement "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Normally I think that is the case, but I don't think it should be the case with WP:POLITICIAN. The debate that lead to the current wording of WP:POLITICIAN saw strong support for striking out candidates altogether as an absolute rul, and a redirect was essentially a compromise option. WP:GNG explains that presumed notability means "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article". I think that consensus exists for political candidates who only meet GNG through their candidacies, and I certainly push for that consensus at AfDs. I'm just not a fan of wikipedia having a range of BLPs (which are often written by COI editors) about marginally notable and unsuccessful political candidates. But again, open to disagreement. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree to some extent with that philosophy in the the hypothetical but sadly it's not reflected in the current wording of WP:POLITICIAN and criterion 3 there specifically states "[unelected candidates] can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."". I think the main reason it's fine in its current wording is that just being a candidate doesn't get you the media coverage necessary to pass WP:N; you'll only get that significant coverage where the media thinks you're of genuine political importance (I can say that from personal experience as a candidate). So it's not like the floodgates are open to everyone. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I certainly don't disagree that if you get significant coverage in reliable sources unassociated with your candidature, you should get over the line. I generally (subject to exceptions) wouldn't regard campaign-related coverage as "significant coverage" as it is focuses on the campaign, not the individual. Hence it is better to include campaign-related information on a page about the campaign, not individual pages about the candidates. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Section 116 of the Australian Constitution

Updated DYK query On April 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Section 116 of the Australian Constitution, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

{{DYKbotdo 11:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Rohaini Abdul Karim

Hello Mkativerata, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, Rohaini Abdul Karim, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Ottre. This has been done because the page is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Ottre. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of Ottre (talk · contribs) 00:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

I was going to give you one for those wonderful minefields CSD questions you keep creating, but I see you already have one. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I do get concerned every now and then that I'm too tough on RFA candidates with CSDs. But I just can't help but think that CSD is an excellent gauge of clue. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not really too tough, but one should not overly weight test questions. There was a time when I would have joined your oppose, but I've changed my views over the years. I once destroyed an otherwise viable RFA with a question, the user never came back. Dlohcierekim 00:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

When

were you planning to run the gantlet? Cheers, 00:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've only been a regular since December 2009 so I think I'd fail per WP:NOTNOW. In any case, I tend to think that I'm better off not being an admin, it gives me more freedom to focus on my content work. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blanchardb 2 response to my support amendment

Well done. Dlohcierekim 01:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to badger your support. I just wanted to clear up the "error rate" issue because I have no idea what the %ge error rate here would be. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
No, you did fine. It is a discussion. Too often people are too sensitive when others poke holes in their arguments. You struck a perfect balance in countering my argument. Dlohcierekim 18:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Read Malaysian?

Hi. :) Do you by any chance read Malaysian? I need to tag an article on the Malaysian Wikipedia as a probable copyright violation, but I don't know how. Our template {{subst:copyvio}} doesn't work there. The article in question is ms:Sri Menanti, and I believe that it was created by copying content from [1], [2] and [3]. (This is in reference to a brand new Malaysian CCI: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Sisiluncai.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't speak Malay, but Google translate does. I found ms:Wikipedia:Hak_cipta which is their copyright page, but I'm not seeing anything in their links from that page or in their templates to indicate a copyright problem and all I see skimming the page is instructions to mention on the talk page and/or delete copyvio text (at the bottom of the page). VernoWhitney (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I guess, then, we need somebody who speaks Malaysian to explain the problem at the talk page. I could do a google translate version of a notice, but I hate to imagine what I might wind up saying. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
There's always a list of declared Malay speakers for when/if you try to track someone down. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks friendly TPS! Unfortunately my Malay is not good enough to read; I can only really speak enough to get by. It is depressing that we now have three Malaysian CCIs. That might stem from the Malaysian education system having a very different view of what constitutes acceptable use of other people's work. Even in universities, students get away with ctrl-c ctrl-v. From now I think I will watch contributions on Malaysian articles by new contributors carefully. ms-wiki is another problem entirely, the use of non-free images there is rampant but I'm not sure what can be done about it. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll track down somebody who can explain. :) There are certain countries I see show up again and again at the various copyright fora; India, Pakistan and China also pop up a lot. In fact, just today I found reverse infringement by two Indian doctors in what is evidently a published book. I think you're on to something about cultural differences. But, then, too, this is universal. Most of the issues we get are from the U.S. or the U.K. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivia Feschuk

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivia Feschuk (2nd nomination), at the same time as you did it. I'll U1.  fetchcomms☛ 23:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Or.. never mind :P  fetchcomms☛ 23:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Section 116 of the Australian Constitution

The article Section 116 of the Australian Constitution you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Section 116 of the Australian Constitution for things which need to be addressed. S Masters (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Section 116 of the Australian Constitution

The article Section 116 of the Australian Constitution you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Section 116 of the Australian Constitution for eventual comments about the article. Well done! S Masters (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Mkativerata. You have new messages at SMasters's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ron Killings

I think he might have died recently.. there is a LOT of IP vandalism regarding his death, if true. Idk if it's true or not. I've requested page protection. Just a heads up

  • Thanks. I can't find any source saying he died so I'll just rollback any claims of death until sources are presented. Actually it seems the character might have "died" in a wrestling event. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah okay. Thanks for the reply --Tommy2010 02:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roman888 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Manny432 (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I just read up on all the latest. My goodness, he's nothing if not persistent. Not altogether pleased I wasn't notified of the case in my name; not sure whose fault that is, or if it matters now. I've got to hand it to you - you're tenacious as hell!! Well done! Drmargi (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes I missed that SPI as well. It seems Roman888 accused me of being your sock. I don't think notification is mandatory, and in spurious cases a checkuser clerk will probably just close it before the innocent party even knows. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

The Barnstar of Diligence
Your work at this CCI and the related sock saga truly merit this barnstar. "Extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service", indeed. On behalf of the community, I thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Great work. I know how tedious it can be, and I have all confidence in the way you have handled it. I'm sorry for the harassment that you've put up with because of it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow, thank you! To be honest I don't consider it harassment - I find it funny... I'd be happy to help out with other CCIs as well, I'll have a look around the CCI page. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
We'd be lucky to have you. :) Feel free to pitch in anywhere you like. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

GAN backlog elimination drive - 1 week to go

First off, on behalf of myself and my co-coordinator Wizardman, I would like to thank you for the efforts that you have made so far in this GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a success, and that is thanks to you. See this Signpost article about what this drive has achieved so far.

We're currently heading into the final week of the drive. At this time, if you have any GANs on review or on hold, you should be finishing off those reviews. Right now, we have more GANs on review or on hold than we do unreviewed. If you're going to start a GA review, please do so now so you can complete it by the end of the month and so that the nominator has a full 7-day window to address any concerns.

See you at the finish!

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 16:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandal fighting

I think we might have both just reverted vandalism on each others user pages by the same vandal. Thanks for that :) Kehrbykid (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

And thank you! Nice co-incidence... --Mkativerata (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the list of MPs

I would like to thank you for taking the time for creating a wiki page for each MP in Malaysia. If I were you, I could have abandoned it already! Again, thank you for your contributions!Cerevisae (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! It was a few months of hard work, but I learnt a lot about Malaysian politics on the way! --Mkativerata (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Najib administration and Apco Worldwide

Hi, I just happened to see that you have been participating on the 1Malaysia article and thought I would bring your attention to this one. I just happened to see it while doing new pages patrol and tagged it as having multiple problems (including POV issues). I know nothing about this subject and would welcome other interested editors taking a look at the article as it stands. — e. ripley\talk 03:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for coming across this article. I'm pretty sure we have some socking going on here. I have filed an SPI case and if the creator is found to be a sock, we can have the article deleted as G5.--Mkativerata (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
As I was poking around on this last night I saw the prior Checkuser on Roman888 related to other Apco articles and figured he was involved in this somehow. Glad to help. — e. ripley\talk 11:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Malaysia

Hi, you are receiving this message because you are currently in WikiProject Malaysia's member list. The project is currently undergoing revamping and we would like to find out who the current active members are. If you still would like to remain in the project(we hope you do!), please add your name to the list here. Also, we are collecting ideas as to the direction of this project and we would love to hear your suggestions and feedback. Please visit this page to leave your comments. Thank you and happy editing! On behalf of the WikiProject Malaysia, BejinhanTalk 11:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

James Bibby

Before adding (or in this case "restoring") an "Unreferenced BLP" tag, why don't you first take a look to see if you can find a reference to add. In this case, references are quickly found - if one just looks. Andy14and16 (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No before adding references, please ensure they are reliable. Unreliable sources are the same as, if not worse than, no sources at all.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello, Mkativerata. after seeing around the place, I think you'll make an excellent administrator. Would you like to be nominated? ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 14:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks very much for the vote of confidence. I only became a regular editor in December 2009 so I don't think I have the experience to be an admin. There are still a lot of things I would need to learn. And I actually enjoy just being an editor without having admin responsibilities. But thanks again for the note, and thank you also for your work trying to convince people to run. When people have been complaining that there aren't enough RFA candidates, you've actually been going out and trying to fix it. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Was just thinking this over and if you'd ever like to run you'd have my support also. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much, but the more I think about it the more likely it is a case of "not ever" for me wanting to go through an RfA. What about WP:RFA/DustFormsWords? You'd certainly get a lot of support and we could use more admins in our timezone. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
My criteria is I'm not going to ask until either (a) it would make my work significantly more efficient or (b) someone else asks me to on the basis they need more admins in an area. At the moment really the only place I'd be using it is at AfD and CSD, and there's plenty of CSD admins and I'm not eager for the administrative hassle of closing AfDs. Besides, it's a bit hard to claim I'm ready when people like Joe Chill are getting knocked back. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Very similar thoughts to me then. Likewise AfD and CSD are the only admin areas I really know, and apart from some short CSD delays in our timezone those areas are never backlogged. And I doubt being an admin ever makes one's work more efficient, what with having to deal with the endless complaints etc. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive

GAN backlog elimination drives chart up to 1 May

On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, I'd like to especially thank you for your efforts over this past month's GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a complete success, which hopefully results in more expedient good article reviews, increasing users' confidence in the good article nomination processes. Even if you made just a small contribution, it still helped contribute to the success of this drive. Here is what we have accomplished this last month in this drive.

  • 661 total nominations were reviewed. 541 of them passed (~81.8%), 97 (~14.7%) failed, and 23 (~3.5%) ended on hold.
  • The WP:GAN page started at 110,126 bytes length on 1 April and ended at 43,387 bytes length at the end of 30 April (a 66,739 byte reduction in the page, about 60.6% less).
  • Excluding extremes, the longest wait for someone's GAN to be review was about 11.5 weeks at the beginning. (I mistook the figure when I reported to the Signpost that it was 13.) At the end, with the exception of one that was relisted, the longest wait is now at 10 days.
  • 63 different users participated, each having completed at least one GAN, with others also having helped out behind-the-scenes in making the drive a success.
  • The drive started with 463 GA nominations remaining and 388 unreviewed. At the end of the month, we ended with 89 remaining (374 or about 80.8% less) and 47 unreviewed (341 or about 87.9% less).

For those who have accomplished certain objectives in the drive, awards will be coming shortly. Again, thank you for your help in the drive, and I hope you continue to help review GA nominations and overall improve the quality of articles here on Wikipedia.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Australian legal/constitutional articles

They need you! Tony (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm thinking our coverage is so deficient in the area that quantity of new material is perhaps as important as quality. In other words, the time I would have to spend taking a GA to FA would be better spent taking another article from a stub to a GA. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
S 116 will be back stronger. What do you think of this FA Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India Hardly any indept sources of scholarly quality, most are high-school civics textbooks? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmm this article does seem to be a ripe candidate for the chopping block. I think there are two additional problems with the article to the problem you've identified. Both problems were raised in the FAC and weren't addressed by the nominator very well, but that didn't seem to stop the article getting through:
The first problem is a general lack of citations. A number of quite controversial-looking sentences hang out without footnotes, eg "Efforts to implement the Directive Principles include the Programme for the Universalisation of Elementary Education and the Five-Year Plans have accorded the highest priority in order to provide free education to all children up to the age of 14."
The second and larger problem is, in my view, an over-use of Constitutional provisions as sources. A Constitutional provision is a primary source and in my view shouldn't be used as a source for anything other than for quoting the provision itself. But this article does a lot more than that. It analyses the effect of the provisions to draw particular conclusions. That shouldn't be done without secondary sourcing. Thus, original research.
I'd be happy to start a FAR for it if you're inclined to agree. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure I think I might get yelled at if I start anymore FARs. FAC mostly a straight vote in those days YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
OK I'll kick off a nom tomorrow morning. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mkativerata/Archive2&oldid=1091525558"