Talk:Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005/GA1

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

Reviewer: Turnitinpro (talk · contribs) 03:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Well-written:

 * This article reads like a rambling overlong amateur essay. Previous editors have commented on the talk page that the article lacks NPOV and reads like a GOV handout. I agree. Article does not generally respect MOS lead requirements, for instance on the CAG objections it is repetitive. The text does not correspond to section headers at several places. eg. Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey said that "the MGNREGA Sameeksha is a significant innovation to evaluate policy and delivery". is this evaluation official?. Similarly "The anthology reportedly draws on independent assessments of MGNREGA conducted by Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs)..." why qualify it by "reportedly", does it or doesn't it ? Similarly the next quotation attributed to the Prime Minister extensively praising the scheme, is a deliberate  misrepresentation of the source which actually has Singh "expressing surprise that concurrent evaluation of NREGA scheme is "not in good shape" and directed the Planning Commission to address the deficiency and "gaps". Making it clear that he was not "fully satisfied" with the way the scheme is working, he noted the problems like delayed payment to workers under the government's flagship and said these should be addressed at the earliest." The article abounds with such NPOV examples. poor

Verifiable with no original research:

 * The article contains a list of references. Most of these are Government pamphlets published by the same departments which are implementing the scheme ie. Planning Commission and Ministry of Rural Development. This reinforces suspicion that this article is NPOV and promotional. The entire section "Details of the Law" has been directly derived (brazenly copied) from a single document (in the nature of an FAQ) on the scheme published by the same Government department responsible for the scheme. Similarly the section "The law and the Constitution of India" seems to be original research by the author who stitches it together with vague allusions to the Constitution of India. The section "Assessment of the act by the constitutional auditor" contains a great deal of cruft (referenced to pad up the distinct lack of secondary sources for much of the article). Large chunks of this article seem to be Original Research by the author. poor

Broad in its coverage:

 * Can't say anything about this as yet. Article is excessively long and promotional in tone, and goes into excessive detail.

Neutral:
This article is one-sided since it is sourced from Government handouts and it reflects them. Previous versions of the article had many instances of complaints and controversies for the scheme, which have been airbrushed out in this version. I've already spotted several examples of lack of NPOV and distortion of the few secondary sources this article has. unfair, unbalanced and biased

Stable:
This article has experienced some instability and edit-warring very recently involving multiple editors and content disputes. Allegations have been made that the nominated article contains copyright violations, synthesis and original research. I can't comment on the copyright violations, but there are strong indications of synthesis and original research in this article. This article also seems to have been rapidly developed by a single contributor in the space of a month.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:
Yes article has several images as illustrations. The infobox image is a self created image by the primary contributor. It appears to be a direct copy of the law itself. Can't comment if this falls within Free Usage till its known how it was created. The image of Sonia Gandhi has been inserted as captioned "Sonia Gandhi .. is believed to be instrumental in making the Mahatma Gandhi NREGA into law". In that case ought her image to be placed here if there is any doubt about this claim ? Similarly an image of a quotation attributed to Gandhiji has been bunged in with the tag "The law is based on Gandhian principles.". The source for this has nothing to say on the scheme, and in fact predates it by 16 years. Just another example of Original Research by the author. The image of the Constitution of India has also been bunged in unnecessarily. In fact all modern laws of India are derived from the Constitution, so this section and the image seems a COATHOOK to hang somebody's agenda on. The image on "Capacity Building .. Effective Management" is Original Research created by the author whose connection (if any) to the CAG audit report is tenuous and unexplained. Why Mohandas Singh's image has been inserted is not clear. The adjacent quote attributed to him is a deliberate misrepresentation of his statement. very poor

SUMMARY
This article Fails GA for me.Turnitinpro (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

*** Another comment on this article ***
The December 9 2013 version of this article is highly biased, and reads as if written by the public relations office of Indian government or some political party behind this program. For balance and neutrality, please reduce excessive reliance on Indian government documents. Remove off topic pictures of all political names. Remove advocacy. Trim out coatrack digressions. Include summary from other secondary reliable sources that have reviewed MG-NREGA program, such as:


 * The Economist - Digging Holes
 * The Wall Street Journal - India's Boom Bypasses Rural Poor
 * Stéphanie Gimenez Stahlberg at Stanford University - India’s latest and largest workfare program: evaluation and recommendations, 2012
 * Jha and Gaiha at The Australian National University - India's National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme as it is - Interpreting the Official Report, 2012
 * Bloomberg News - India Jobs Program Scam Pays Wages to Dead Workers

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted Carpenter (talk • contribs) 04:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Final Review Recommendations
FAIL. The nominator is unwilling to either defend or copy-edit this overly lengthy, poorly written, politically motivated, highly promotional and POV, badly sourced, virtually self written article hastily cobbled together from handouts of the concerned Government agencies responsible for this controversial program. (NB: additional comments by the new account have been disregarded while arriving at my conclusions).Turnitinpro (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have made significant changes (improvements in my opinion!) - please see if it seems better now.

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. MER-C 12:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)