Content deleted Content added
Taking up this nom |
starting review |
||
Line 7:
<!-- Please add all review comments below this comment, and do not alter what is above. So that the review can be kept within a single section, please do not use level 2 headers (==...==) below to break up the review. Use level 3 (===...===), level 4 and so on.-->
I will take up this review. I'll have a read and will message back with comments and the formal review. [[User:DiplomatTesterMan|DTM]] ([[User talk:DiplomatTesterMan|talk]]) 07:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Detailed review follows. If you wish, you may add an indented comment after each item. Please do not strike through completed items or add tick marks or other graphics. That will interfere with my own system of tracking progress. I will be doing the review in pieces.
;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.
* 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)
;British India (1858–1947)
''to do''
;Legislative reforms
''to do''
;Hindu Code Bill and addition to the Directive Principles
''to do''
;Later years and Special Marriage Act
''to do''
;Significance of Shah Bano case
''to do''
;Current status and opinions
''to do''
;Legal status and prospects
''to do''
;Images
''to do''
;References
''to do''
;Spelling
''to do''
| |||