Talk:Indian Administrative Service/GA2

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 12:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the ✅ tag to state when something is addressed.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

 * It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria - Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 12:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It contains copyright infringements - Copyvio is clean Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 12:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include,, or large numbers of , , or similar tags. (See also ). -  Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 12:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. - Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 12:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Links

 * No Dablinks ✅ Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * is a deadlink, needs archive/tagging. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a couple more issues on the dispenser. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Lede

 * Not a fan of references in lede. The lede should be a summary of information throughout article, not a place for new information. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As such, the bureaucracy remains politically neutral and guarantees administrative continuity - Can this be guarenteed? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ledes should be a summary of the article, but primarily discuss the subject. This lede mentions what officers do "Upon confirmation of service, an IAS officer serves a probationary period as a sub-divisional magistrate", this seems like undue WP:WEIGHT. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd argue the third paragraph of the lede shouldn't be there at all (the information is fine, but not for a lede). Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "On attaining the higher scales of the pay matrix," sounds very promotional to me. We shouldn't really mention pay unless it's contentious. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

History

 * Is the Premier's conference independently notable? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Is the quote neccesary? Seems like puff to me. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Recruitment

 * Any ideas if there is any specific MOS for Politics articles? I couldn't find anything, so wanted to make sure these are the correct titles/layout. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Officers recruited this way are called direct recruits - known as Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Only about 180 candidates out of over 1 million applicants, who apply through the Civil Services Examination (CSE), are successful, a success rate of less than 0.01 per cent.[10][21] As a result, the members of the service are often referred as "heaven-born" - only around - I'd reword this, something like "From every 1 million applicants, only around 180 are successful... Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The "State cadres" subsection should have at least a line stating what this is. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Should names like "Department of Personnel and Training" by italicized? not sure. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the subsections should be previous and then current to be in date order. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Responsibilities of an IAS officer

 * is this a notable section? Seems very POV and crufty to me. Is this a normal inclusion. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd much prefer this in prose to bullets even if kept. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Career progression

 * outside of prize money for sports, wikipedia generally doesn't discuss payscales (at all), unless really notable (such as someone being paid a world record amount, or say the article on minimum wage). The "scales" should be removed Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems quite badly WP:WEIGHTed towards workers, rather than an overview of the civil service itself. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Assessment of suitability for promotion and posting section is complete fluff. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Major concerns and reforms

 * This title is weird. Could it not simply be called "Reform"? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Needs a restructure. The info on corruption is clearly the most notable here, so should be at the top Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "itiveness and bring in alternate perspectives.[82][83][84][85][86][87]" - removed some refs. This is WP:REFBOMB. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Media personalities, some retired IAS officers and a few academics have argued in favour of lateral entry into the IAS to inject fresh blood into the service" - Such as whom? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The quote seems out of place. Could this not be summarized and avoid copyvio issues? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "In 2017, a Central Bureau of Investigation special court in Delhi sentenced a former Union Coal Secretary and two other IAS officers to two years in prison for their involvement in the coal allocation scam.[132][133]

In 2017" - Two paragraphs start with the same two words. As they are short, merge the paras. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fake cases - this subsection for one sentence is pointless. Absorb into somewhere else Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "reported that twelve IAS officers had gone missing, and had not reported to either the union" remove the comma.
 * Notable IAS officiers looks fine for now. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Notes & References

 * Am happy with this. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
For reference, I know very little about politics (even that of the UK, where I live), so I may bring up information that is obvious to a reader either from India or one versed in Politics/Bureaucracy. However, as Wikipedia GAs are supposed to be written for ease of access.

On another note, I hope this review is helpful. Let me know if I'm reading anything wrong. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've placed on hold, as per above. My main issue with this article is that it is very bias towards the employees of the IAS, and not the company itself. I've also some issues regarding to structure as noted above. However, I don't think it's too hard a fix. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)