Content deleted Content added
→GA Review: continuation of review |
manual archive template |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
==GA Review==
{{Archive top |result = Fail |status = RESULT }}
<noinclude>{{al|{{#titleparts:Uniform civil code/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}<br/></noinclude><includeonly>:''This review is [[WP:transclusion|transcluded]] from [[Talk:Uniform civil code/GA1]]. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''</includeonly>
Line 12:
;Lead/Intro
* The usage of Business Standard for the first line seems inappropriate since it leads to text with no publication date, no update date and no author. Further, since the lead is a summary of what is in the body, there should be nothing unique to the lead that is not mentioned in the body as per [[WP:MOSLEAD]]. This particular Business Standard link is not used anywhere else in the body. The same is the case with the second, third, fourth, fifth citations in the lead. Apart from the first citation of Business Standard, the other citations seem adequate for inclusion in the body. However, no page numbers have been given for the second reference – Shimon Shetreet and Hiram E. Chodosh, 2014.
* [[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] The first sentence needs some work. Religion doesn't need to be mentioned and emphasized twice. Please note the usage of {{tq|replace personal laws}} in the first line. "replace"... Take for example what the [https://books.google.co.in/books?id=y-pIDwAAQBAJ second citation] itself says ''"The mere existence of a civil law does not nullify the existence of religious law. […] The main law will be civil; the parallel law will be religious."'' Further, India's civil code has not been passed so we can't assume what it will "replace", unless you have sources for it and explain the same in the body. I will not get into the editorial aspect of this too much, but as the first line, it needs to be worked upon.
* The usage of UCC is not consistent. Why is UCC explained near the bottom of the article? Please shift it to the lead.
I will come back to the lead after we get through the body. Please make sure it follows [[WP:MOSLEAD]]. [[User:DiplomatTesterMan|DTM]] ([[User talk:DiplomatTesterMan|talk]]) 10:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Line 35:
;Later years and Special Marriage Act
* {{tq|The Hindu code bill failed to control the prevalent gender discrimination.}} Please address the generalisation.
;Significance of Shah Bano case
* {{tq|It further recommended that a uniform civil code be set up.}} Please confirm that the reference that backs up this line actually cover this.
* Citation 11 (Lawrence & Karim 2007, p. 262–264.) is used multiple times. However the page numbers mentioned p. 262–264 do not cover all the text referenced. Some of the content clearly spills over into p. 265.
* Jaffar Sharief can be linked.
* This phrasing or terminology "Muslim Women law" has not been used previously in the article. Please change accordingly.
;Current status and opinions
* Please make the date format throughout the article consistent. Currently I can see both DDMMYY and MMDDYY. The date template at the top is dmy.
* Please fix the page numbering in citation 27 (Chavan & Kidwai 2006, p. 13–20.). Page 19 is a section divider page and Page 20 in blank.
* Why does it say only {{tq|According to Qutub Kidwai}} and not Nandini Chavan as well?
* What is being referred to here? {{tq|This cannot be accepted}}. Please give this quote some more context or remove "this".
* This can be linked — Law Commission of India.
* Please copyedit the entire last paragraph and fix detailing of citations. {{tq|Indian society in [...] Indian society in }}
;Legal status and prospects
* Please make sure this is referenced {{tq|[...] included in BJP's manifesto for 1998 and 2019 elections [...]}}
;External links
* Please format external links correctly.
;Images
* Both seem ok
;References
* This book is in the bibliography — [Larson, Gerald James, ed. (2001), Religion and Personal Law in Secular India] — but I don't see it being used in the article. Please shift to further reading if not cited.
;Spelling
* Please make usage of Uniform Civil Code/uniform civil code consistent. All capital letters or all small letters?
;Copyright
* Earwigs catches two references for copyright — [https://fansfullpac.netlify.app/uniform-civil-code-in-goa-pdf.html 1] & [https://www.academia.edu/12113250 2]. These have been checked against the history of the article. They are a case of text being copied from Wikipedia.
[[User:DiplomatTesterMan|DTM]] ([[User talk:DiplomatTesterMan|talk]]) 08:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
{{GAProgress | prose = n| mos = n| reflayout = n| reliablesources = y| originalresearch = neu
| copyvio = neu| broadness = neu | focus = neu| neutral = y| stable = neu| freeortaggedpics = y
| picsrelevant = neu}}
I have reviewed the article and notified the nominator of the same. Currently I will put this review on hold for seven days for changes. I will give it a fresh review after '''21 October 2020'''.
[[User:DiplomatTesterMan|DTM]] ([[User talk:DiplomatTesterMan|talk]]) 06:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
: [[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman.kumar.goel]], I see that a few changes have been made which are looking good. Do you plan on making the other changes or should I close this review? [[User:DiplomatTesterMan|DTM]] ([[User talk:DiplomatTesterMan|talk]]) 08:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
:: {{u|DiplomatTesterMan}} I think you better close this review. I'm not having time to make any significant changes these days. I will again try in a couple of months after I modify the article actually. Regards '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' <sup>(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')</sup> 09:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
::: Alright. I am closing this for now. Best of luck on the re-nomination. [[User:DiplomatTesterMan|DTM]] ([[User talk:DiplomatTesterMan|talk]]) 12:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
| |||