Talk:Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: MrLinkinPark333 (talk · contribs) 05:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for nominating this article at GAN. Unfortunately, this article is a long way from passing the Well-written criteria, making this a quick fail per WP:GAFAIL. I have also found neturality issues as well. Here is a list of issues that I have found:

Well-written

 * There are 5 sections written with only bullet point sentences. I think the two timelines and one background section should be merged together. The reason why I believe these should be merged as there is duplicated content in these sections. They are:
 * 18 November 2022 consultation (3 times), 5 July 2023 revised version (2 times), 3 August 2023 introduction at Lok Sabha (3 times), 7 August 2023 passed in Lok Sabha (2 times), 9 August 2023 passed in Raiya Sabha (2 times), 11 August 2023 assent (2 times).
 * Per MOS:EDITORIAL, the 3 sentences that start with "However" should be rewritten.
 * I see some grammar issues as well:
 * "Later received criticism from stakeholders, opposition and experts the bill was withdrawn from the Parliament of India on 3 August 2022" - this sentence does not sound right grammatically. Suggested rewording: "After it received criticism from stakeholders, opposition and experts, the bill was withdrawn from the Parliament of India on 3 August 2022."
 * "The report was modified several times later by the Government of India...tabled in the Parliament of India on 11 December 2019" - this sentence is too long. It either needs commas or made into 2 sentences.
 * "The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023 is the draft version of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023,...making it the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023." This sentence is too long and should be split into multiple sentences.
 * "The MoS has further confirmed, the only exemption is, it can access that data". I Think "the only exemption is" part should be made into a new sentence as it does not doesn't sound correct as written in only one sentence.

For these 5 bullet point sections in the article, the timeline and background sections should be combined together due to the duplicated sentences. The duplicated sentences and sections are a big concern as there are 6 events mentioned multiple times, with two events mentioned three times.

Neutrality issues

 * There are sentences that do not specify who these opinions belong to in the Criticism and withdrawal section:
 * "This view is shared by a think tank"
 * "an advisor to a group"
 * "India scholar working with an American co-author"
 * Here are some examples of sentences that do not sound neutral in the two criticism sections:
 * "The Wikimedia Foundation is hoping that the PDP bill will prove the lesser evil"
 * "There are serious loopholes of how the bill is unable to identify the scope of governmental bodies"
 * "confuses the idea of informational privacy and leaves much to be desired'''. "
 * "differs from the original idea of what the law could have been'''"

These issues in the criticism sections are my main concern as Wikipedia articles need to be written neturally and given attribution to these authors' opinions.

Overall review
Overall, I have found a lot of issues for Criteria #1 well-written and some for Criteria #4 Neutrality. There are 6 events that are duplicated within the article. Additionally, there are sentences that need to be rewritten for editorial and grammar issues. Alternatively, there are sentences that do not state who these opinions are from and sentences that do not sound neutral. I think the 5 bullet point sections, duplicated sentences, unattributed opinions and non-netural sentences should be focused on first. After the well-written and neturality issues are fixes, this article can be renominated to GAN. I hope this review encourages you to fix these issues and renominate. Thank you for submitting this to GAN!