Talk:Neelam Sanjiva Reddy/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ugog Nizdast (talk · contribs) 14:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominator: Ashwin147 (talk · contribs) 08:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I will be doing this, expect it during this week. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like I'll be delayed for a few days more. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria At a brief glance, the prose is fairly okay and referencing may be an issue. Let's see how it goes as I check it section-wise. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * Some instances 17:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC) 19:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Lead needs to be reworked 17:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC) 18:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citations to reliable sources:
 * found some non-RSes and broken links 14:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC) 17:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Unofficially on hold till issues have been addressed. Nominator has asked for a month. 13:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything addressed by nominator, the article passes. 18:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Unofficially on hold till issues have been addressed. Nominator has asked for a month. 13:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything addressed by nominator, the article passes. 18:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unofficially on hold till issues have been addressed. Nominator has asked for a month. 13:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything addressed by nominator, the article passes. 18:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Section "Education and family",
 * Add his year of birth to the intro statement. As it is, it's only mentioned in the lead and infobox--nowhere in the main article.
 * ref 4 (The Hindu, "Take a bow to the 'grand old lady'") is broken and when viewed, links to the main website's archives.
 * "Freedom fighter"
 * I have a problem with the way this section is written. "Freedom Fighter" is a word to watch, change it to "Indian independence activist". Furthermore, there are instances like "freedom struggle", "...gave up his studies to become an active participant..." and so on need to be neutrally worded.
 * Criteria 2B: The entire section cites "veethi.com" and "pastpresidentsofindia.indiapress" which are clearly not reliable sources. Also indiapicks.com. Find better alternatives.
 * "Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh"
 * Shouldn't chronologically "In 2005, the Chandrababu Naidu led..." go to the "Retirement and death" section? not done but fine by me -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2B: "The Congress governments under Reddy placed emphasis on rural development and agriculture and allied sectors." this challengeable statement needs an backing inline citation.
 * ref 13 ("Chittoor district erupts with joy". The Hindu) is again broken in the same way.

This report shows a possible WP:PARAPHRASE with ref 2 in quite a few paras. Another reason to reword and go through the text again for copy editing like how I just did. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Education and family heading reworked; all broken links replaced; questionable sources edited out and replaced with references from books; Freedom fighter section reworded; source for "The Congress governments under Reddy placed emphasis on rural development and agriculture and allied sectors." given; the Chandrababu Naidu line should stay where it is because it refers to an achievement of the Reddy government. Reference 2: I'm 99% sure the speech has been ripped off Wikipedia content. (It certainly isn't the other way around). But gimme a little time to rework, since I'm assuming AGF isn't going to be good enough for a GA. Meanwhile can you let me know what else needs reworking/re-sourcing? Thank you for your time and effort, UN. Cheers! Ashwin147 (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What? ref 2 the speech from Press Information Bureau is copied from wiki? Lol you're probably right, it's dated 2013 and I wasn't paying attention there since I didn't expect our government to rip off our own articles. Well, shame on me, I'll remember this next time. Better find a replacement source for this.
 * Also, you have a paraphrase problem with ref 3 see report. Though I think as I go through it and make minor edits, it will become a non-issue.
 * One-third of it done and I'll continue my review, expect my comments here soon. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been reworking the bits where I thought there could be arguments of plagiarism and been adding other citations too. The Earwig results now show up for all the proper nouns - and it's still 60%+ on both Refs. I can't possibly alter proper nouns and facts and I don't know what to do. :( Ashwin147 (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Oh. And I noticed people copy paste off wiki quite often. Saw that once in an edit on the Suvarna Vidhan Soudha that a later newspaper entry carried in toto. To be honest the Ref 2 speech is rather banal and a mere reiteration of facts. I wouldn't be surprised if the babu writing his speech just did a copy paste job to save time. Ashwin147 (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry I don't see any copyvio issues with it now . Yes, Earwig tends to show 60+ for most articles and you only need to pay attention when it's 75+. I've yet to continue my work on your article and will do it as soon as I get time. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh" : In "In 1964, he resigned voluntarily ...", what does "unfavourable observations" mean here in context? Also the average reader won't know what's Bus Routes Nationalisation case. I can tell you how to proceed if you explain the context. # Have added an explanatory note with the SC's observations. Ashwin147 (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Speaker of the Lok Sabha" :
 * " Rejecting a defamation suit against.." I don't see the relevance of this incident. Its mentioning seems kind of random in this para. I think it needs to be removed. # I mentioned it because the SC's judgement is important and the suit was against the Speaker Reddy and others. Have added a footnote. Tell me if this works or what can be done to keep it here. Ashwin147 (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Criteria 2B "he described himself as the 'watchman of the Parliament'", put one inline citation just after this quotation
 * 4 "conducted himself with dignity and handled parliamentary business efficiently", now this statement is POVish. You'll need multiple sources to back this up or state according to whose opinion or you could just remove it. # Citation done, POVish statement deleted. Ashwin147 (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "he had several hostile encounters with Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in the House that proved costly when he became, two years later, the Congress Party's nominee to succeed Zakir Hussain as President." this can be a separate statement as it is too long. # I think this sentence is okay. It's not confusing, is it? Ashwin147 (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC) okay that's fine -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Presidential election of 1969":
 * 2B Provide more inline citations for this para particularly for the figures, quotation and other challegeable statements. # Done. Ashwin147 (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2B The citations given for "The 1969 Indian presidential election remains the most closely fought in independent India's history." do not support it. # I've removed that line completely. Ashwin147 (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2A Provide the page no for ref 48 (Limca Book of Records) to improve accessibility. # Can't get it from there. But the second reference also corroborates it Ashwin147 (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Presidential election of 1977" : "He was the fourth President to be elected from South India and the third from Andhra Pradesh" again seems trivial and irrelevant. This article mentions many 'firsts' but this one seems too far. # I agree. Deleted. Ashwin147 (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I recommend you to add dates to the section titles
 * Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh-> Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh (1956–1960, 1962–1964)
 * Similarly, "Congress President (1960–1962) and Union Minister (1964–1967)", do this for "Speaker of the Lok Sabha", "Return to active politics", "Morarji Desai government", "Charan Singh government" and "Indira Gandhi's return to power" -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC) # Done. Ashwin147 (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Criteria 6B The information mentioned about his country visits for the image needs to be mentioned in the article. That's why there's no need of adding references for that caption. See WP:CAPTION for tips on writing them. # I've reworked that section, done. Ashwin147 (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1A "Charan Singh Government" : this subsection needs to be better worded, I had to read it two-three times to understand it. Consider splitting long statements and improving context for readers not immediately familiar with this topic. # Reworked and added more sources. Hope this is better. Ashwin147 (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think you better use an explanatory note here for the content devoted to the Gandhi and Singh feud because now there's too much focus on that. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC) # Can't we leave this bit here? I mean, there's one line explaining why Reddy chose Singh and the next line says why it failed. Surely that's not taking away focus off Reddy. Also, in the next paragraph, I've added a footnote on the decision to overlook Jagjivan Ram's claim. Ashwin147 (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Okay for now, let's keep it. When I do the final check I'll check if it's okay. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Indira Gandhi's return to power" : Again for our layperson readers, what does "return to power" mean here? Was she in power first? Improve context or just say government. # Let the heading remain. I've now added matter in the article to sort out any confusions about her second coming. Ashwin147 (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Retirement and death"
 * 1A The statement "The character of chief minister Mahendranath ..." is confusing. Is the character (called Mahendranath from the book?) based on Reddy?. Please reword and simplify. # I think that sentence in the article is rather self-explanatory. I don't get what the confusion is about. Ashwin147 (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I reworded it here, hope it's what you were trying to say. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC) # Yes. Thank you. So this is also done. Ashwin147 (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Does "While the book portrayed him as a serial fornicator" and "Ramnika Gupta accused Reddy of having raped her" have any relation to each other? Do sources compare it? If not, then you better remove the first statement and just merely state the second. Comparing the book and this incident is original research if no source supports it. # The book portrays him as having been a fornicator. Ramnika Gupta accused Reddy of having raped her. Both individually true, sources cited for both. Again, I fail to see the issue here. Do clarify this for me. Ashwin147 (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In the strictest sense, attaching these two independent statements without sources actually comparing them is original research. So what you need to do here split them and avoid this comparison. Think of it like this, source 1 says A, source 2 says B, we can't say A + B unless there's another source C which says so. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm unable to see what's wrong. I mean there's no comparing different things in that statement. Merely stating two facts in the same sentence. How would you rework it? Can you help me here? Ashwin147 (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see two ways: either attach how he was portrayed to the previous sentence or remove it altogether leaving the accusation sentence. Also, adding the date of the accusation (the given reference's date) would be good. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC) # Done. Ashwin147 (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 1B Lead section
 * A Lead section merely summarises the rest of the article, it does not mention anything new. Move all its refs and new content to the article (if any) and summarise the article.
 * Your summary of it should be ideally two-three paras given the current size of the article per WP:LEADLENGTH.
 * Remember, ideally the lead should cover a little of each section. Making it the right size is one of the most common problems with articles and I recommend you read MOS:LEAD for tips on writing it. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * New lead needs to be shortened. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

That winds up my section-wise checking of the article. My review is almost over. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, UN. That's a lot of things to do. I'll finish with it by Christmas, since I have some important work coming up shortly. So I'll keep chiseling at this piece till it's all done and perfect. I have two Qs to ask: 1. How does one add footnotes - I was thinking the Bus Nationalisation Case and the Tej Kiran Jain v. Sanjiva Reddy could both do with foot noted contexts. 2. I've noticed that the FAs usually have the book citations done with pages and names under references and the details separately. Is that required here? If so how does one go about doing that. Thanks again for all your inputs. I'll keep working on them and pester you a bit till this article gets the all clear. Cheers! Ashwin147 (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You can take as long as you like, but just remember to notify me. I'll place this article on hold then.


 * Yes, footnotes are a good idea for improving the context. Lets see, for explanatory notes, you can read the documentation of Template:Efn and an example FA where it's used is Pather Panchali.
 * 1) Nope, if I got your question correctly, that isn't required here. It's mostly done when there are numerous different page citations from each single book or journal. There's no hard and fast rule when to use but you know it's best to stick to one citation style in any article. For future uses, you can read complete examples at WP:CITEX, WP:CITESHORT or Template:sfn. For reference, this is again used in Pather Panchali...have a look.
 * You can ask me anything you like as this page is in my watchlist till the review is over. Some of my comments will just need answering too. Good luck, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Marking my feedback against your comments. Easier. Ashwin147 (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you also look at the newer content additions and tell me if there's anything I should change there?Ashwin147 (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I was wondering if there should be a new heading for the last two paragraphs under the Retirement and Death section. Do you have suggestions. I thought of 'Commemoration' but that would cover only the last paragraph. Or should I just let it be as it is now?
 * I checked them quickly and their fine. When you finish addressing my comments and your content expansion, I'll give this entire article another thorough check and then see if I find anything.
 * How about "Death and legacy" (first para: his death, other two: his legacy)? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a reminder, all you have to do is finish the lead section so that I can do the final check. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Extensive travelling from tomorrow for about 10 days. Will have this done before Christmas. Ashwin147 (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC) Done! Looking forward to hearing from you soon! Ashwin147 (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, having a busy weekend. I haven't gone through the article thoroughly but the new lead is too long. See WP:LEADLENGTH, for the given article size, I estimate just three paras should do. A little tricky, shortening it and yet keeping all the important points. Just try to make sure the lead gives atleast one sentence for each section of the article. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have much to add, but I think the article meets WP:GA criteria and is reasonable well written and wikified.  Royal Mate1  21:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. Yes but there's just one thing pending, and I think the nominator is either busy or hasn't seen my comment. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you see my last comment? there's just one thing left to do! C'mon, just shorten the lead section to three paras (35% reduction approx.) so that I can formally finish this off. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Happy New Year, UN! I've edited out whatever I thought was superfluous in the lede. Any more deletions there will mean skipping salient facts and details. Do let me know what can be done. Ashwin147 (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Wishing you the same and congratulations, I pass this article. I did some lead-trimming myself, do check it out here. Great work, and I hope to see you nominating more such articles regarding important Indian politicians. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * PS: If you think my edit to the lead removed any major points, feel free to redo the lead from scratch. I'm watching the article and can help you with it. Your previous lead had text copied verbatim from the article body and was simply too lengthy. Writing lead sections can be tough, as they have to be concise and short. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll let the lead be. Thank you for promoting this. Am working on V V Giri and hope to have it upgraded to a GA in the not-too-distant future. Thank you again for all your help. Ashwin147 (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)