Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India/Archive1

Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India
Self-nom: A good, comprehensive, well-referenced article, which has been through peer review thrice (1 - 2 - 3). All objections since have been satisfied.-- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91(esperanza elections!) 19:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Article looks good. But before I support, I have a couple of questions.
 * 1. "However, certain practices like wearing and carrying of Kirpans in the profession of the Sikh religion, can be restricted in the interest of public order, morality and health."  This is confusing because it gives the impression that the Kirpan is often a restricted item whereas the actual source makes it clearer.  "Explanation I: The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion."


 * 2. It'd be interesting to see how these rights relate to a Overseas Citizen of India and what if any rights are denied.


 * 3. The expenditure on education graph does not make it clear if it shows the real increase in expenditure. By that I mean, does it take into account inflation?  If it does not, then the figures are VERY misleading.


 * 4. I would recommend the use of the cite templates (e.g. Template:cite book and Template:cite web) but I will not withold support solely on that reason. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. Corrected. Sorry for the mistake.
 * 2. You mean NRIs? That was already there, but I explicitly mentioned it. They're the same.
 * 3. I've totally removed the image. I forgot that the images also have to be referenced, and sice this one is not... :)
 * 4. The templates have been used in the majority of cases. In the cases where it has not been used, the text renders the same as it would have with a cite template.-- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91(esperanza elections!) 21:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - No, not NRIs. NRIs are citizens of India proper.  This year, a new form of citizenship has been released (sort of dual nationality, but not quite there) known as Overseas Citizenship of India.  If you're not certain, then leave it out - OCI is a bit tricky to define it seems ;) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I looked through the Act, and found (on page 5, 7B(2)) that only one right is not accorded to OCIs (see changes). So now that point is also taken care of.-- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91(esperanza elections!) 04:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool, that's great. Thanks. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: My very limited spell checker turned up a few ? items.  Maybe a better spell checker would find some words that actually need to be fixed.  Thanks Hmains 20:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Done some spellchecking, using MS Word.-- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91(esperanza elections!) 21:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support needs a bit more copyediting. Excellent improvement from past position. This Fire Burns....Always   04:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - time to have FAs on substantial issues apart from Pop culture; though not sure abt the child labor photo - it is not India-related and doesn't depict begar, imho. --Gurubrahma 07:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - a laborious effort by Shreshth in writing this comprehensive article on an important subject. But, I strongly feel that it needs to be trimmed a bit more and copyedited. I'm not just concerned at the length of the article, but at the repetitions of certain things like the non-justiciability of the directive principles, for example. I also see that the article is "too-inclusive" when it comes to details. I can understand that it's hard to cut down given that the subject is vast and has a prosaic manifestation. But, in the interest of summary style and reader comfort, we definitely need to move some text to daughter articles. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I created a daughter article Directive Principles in India, but I did not feel that removing any more text would be a good idea, since it may not reduce the size very much, but take away a lot from the article.-- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91(esperanza elections!) 08:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support now after copyediting by Rama's Arrow, Shreshth and others. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object – need a good copyedit.  personal good as well as the good of the community (textbookish), considered a gross violation of the spirit and provisions of the constitution (tone down "gross") ; have to be freed. --> released from custody . 2. Use Indian English spellings (offense-->offence) 3.  The titles of Rai Bahadurs and Khan Bahadurs are also abolished expand on this sentence.  5. endeavour to secure a uniform civil code for all citizens expand on this (mention Goa and mention why this has not been sucessful elsewhere) 6. Avoid overlinking. Many terms have been overlinked leading to a sea of blue. 7. lakh acres? an international equivalent is necessary here. 8. except Jammu and Kashmir and Nagaland. why? 9. Some critical commentary on the subject would make it less textbookish. (I've given some exanples on UCC). You'd need to get hold of someone why has not been involved with the article to copyedit it, since it would be difficult for you to do so based on the familiarity of the topic. Regards,  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've done some work. I'll be looking into the other points as soon as electricity permits :) BTW, could you help copyedit.-- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91(esperanza elections!) 07:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me know once you've finished. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I couldn't find the reason behind the failure of separation of judiciary from executive in JnK and Nagaland, even though that particular statement is cited from a book. Should it be removed? -- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|)  19:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, looks great! &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 08:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. The article is sub-standard. I am not sure if the author is even aware that directive principles are those set of rights and duties that were not unanimously accepted by legislators in 1947 due to cultural differences. Hence they were moved to recommendatory status, that is directive. This is the same case as EU Directives today. It also means these principles are a matter of conflict even today unlike the consensus reached on fundamental rights and duties. The article does not seem to recognise this major point.
 * The structure of the article is unwieldy. It would be better if all the rights, duties, directives and amendments are listed in a tabular format first for ready reference and then explanations and illustrations can flow therefrom. Also, illustrations about enforcement of the rule of law would help reduce the legal-speak here. For instance, its an open secret that the Urban Land Ceilings Act is the most unforceable piece of legislation in the history of the quasi-democracy. The article is thoroughly misleading as regards the role of panchayats (now they share in Union tax pool). Anwar 15:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Having a tabular format would make it worthy of a list. As such, featured article candidates need to be mostly prose. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply to Anwar:
 * I knew about the Directive Principles part since I had heard of it in passing, but I could find no valid source on the net, and thus, I decided not to include it. If you would direct me to any such souce, I'd be more than pleased to add the info about it.
 * As Nichalp has stated above, the tabular format is not such a good idea.
 * I did not understand how the ULCA applies on an article regarding Fundamental Duties, unless it would be with regard to the deleted right to property?
 * Thanks!-- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91(esperanza elections!) 14:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Object—2a, and possibly 2d (POV).
 * "The Fundamental Duties are defined as moral obligations on all citizens of India which help promote a spirit of patriotism"—"On" is wrong; word order is clumsy, juxtaposing "citizens of India which".
 * "are not enforceable by any court, but the principles laid down in it are considered fundamental in the governance of the country"—Again, wrong preposition: "to", not "in the governance". "By the courts" is idiomatic, not "by any court". "But" does not contradict the previous statement, and thus is inappropriate; the deeper problem is that the two ideas don't go together in this sentence.
 * "universally apply to all citizens"—reverse the order of the first two words.
 * "The Indian student community in England was further inspired by the workings of parliamentary democracy and British political parties." No reference, and it would be hard to verify in any case: bordering on POV. The word "inspired" and its variants occur rather a lot.
 * Don't start a sentence with "Also,...".
 * "the independent India's government"—unidiomatic.
 * "the Nehru Commission composing of representatives of"—wrong.

Almost every sentence needs fixing. Please let us know when the prose has been thoroughly audited and is "compelling, even brilliant", as required. Don't just correct these examples; the whole text needs considerable work. Try to find a good copy-editor or two who is/are unfamiliar with the text. PS The title is kind of odd; couldn't it be simplified? Tony 15:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Tony - we've been cleaning up some of the obvious problems, but we need your help in spotting the intrinsic ones which affect the prose. Could you please elaborate a little more specifically about the problems? This Fire Burns Always   12:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)