Wikipedia:Peer review/Fundamental Rights in India/archive1

Fundamental Rights in India

A good article, comprehensive, and well-referenced. Any comments or suggestions are welcome.--May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ^{(review me!)} 16:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An overview of the article makes me feel that the Critical Analysis section has serious POV problems. It also needs more referencing. Other sections are more-or-less "OK". — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ^{(review me!)} 07:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is still not solved. The article doesn't attribute any criticism, so it is not possible to evaluate whether the criticisms are notable or now. In other words, how do we know that these are the criticisms? In its current form, it looks like Original Research. With phrases like

long-standing issues of poverty and economic insecurity,
often deemed "excessive",
Acts like MISA (Maintenance of Internal Security Act) and NSA (National Security Act) are seen as a means of countering the rights,
Corruption is a malaise which restricts social developement,

make the section heavy on POV. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Points 1, 2, 3 are quoted from a particular publication, so I've added refs linking to the page. I've entirely removed the sentence in question in the 4th point (see changes).--May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ^{(esperanza elections!)} 07:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the issues are solved, still traces of POV remain. Why is the2006 anti-reservation protests singled out for "peaceful demonstration without arms"? A better way would be to say it was excercised and as example, the protest can go to reference part, but not the body. I am also unhappy about the phrasing of "MISA" sentence. Although reference, it should be copyedited. Also, Phrases like "reasonable restrictions" or "in the interest of public order" are unclear and poorly-defined, leading to unnecessary litigation. need to be copyedited. Instead of saying 71/91, it is better to write 71 out of 91. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now?--May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ^{(esperanza elections!)} 06:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article look good now. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy _t 23:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]