Talk:Uniform Civil Code/GA1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:53, 14 October 2020

Latest revision as of 14:12, 22 October 2020

(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 1:

==GA Review==

{{Archive top |result = Fail |status = RESULT }}

{{Good article tools}}

<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 71:

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]]''' ^{(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')} 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)