Talk:Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature

Copy-edit
Hi. Just created this new article. Can you please do some copy-editing to make it polished? Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Short on time, but examine my quick ce and if you spot problems, get back to me. Thanks in the meantime for this latest of your important contributions to wiki. Nishi.Nishidani (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It needs a fuller lead.
 * I will do it. --Gazal world (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You have as separate an "editorial unit", an "Executive Board", a "General Council", a "steering committee" and then a new "steering committee". Is that correct?
 * I will have to check. I have all volumes of 'EIL' in my personal library. --Gazal world (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "At the 1875 annual meeting". Did it really take 113 years to publish the first volume?
 * It was 1975. I have restored it back. --Gazal world (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

"History" section done. Let me know what you think. I shall try to get back to it tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks Gog. --Gazal world (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Looking at this I see two main issues that are beyond the scope of copyediting, strictly speaking: the lead still needs to be expanded per MOS:LEAD and the reception section overuses quotes, parts need to be paraphrased somehow. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. The lead has been added. --Gazal world (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , The lead is definitely improved, but do you want to take a stab at reducing quotes. I realize this is challenging (I must have gone through Hitler's prophecy at least five times to avoid overuse of direct quotations). However, I do think it's necessary to reduce them somewhat as they currently dominate the article, and as stated in MOS:QUOTE: "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words." (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. --Gazal world (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 1 more suggestion: Are any of the pieces mentioned in Reception bylined? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't get your last comment. Please clarify again. Thanks for copy-editing. --Gazal world (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , For example, "The Hindu newspaper, in its 21 July edition..." does not state who the author of the article was. If the name of the author (=byline) was disclosed in the original publication, it should be included here as well. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, Now I understood. I have not the name of author. The cited book (of D. S. Rao) Doesn't mention author's name. For author's name, I will have to check the original newspaper pieces. 'll do it in future. --Gazal world (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)