Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indian Standard Time

Indian Standard Time
I had submitted this article in August for FAC (nom) but it failed as it did not get any support to be promoted (+1/-1). I have reviewed the objection carefully since then and don't think it is paramount to add it in the article. Any suggestions welcome (if I can find credible sources). It is currently rated as a Good article. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  01:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support; I read Rama's comments from the last time around, and I feel that this covers what is necessary. --Spangineerws (háblame)  03:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 *  Oppose ; Too short, and I don't like how the sections begin abruptly like this one.
 * 1) With an east-west distance of over 2,000 km (1,200 mi), the sun rises and sets an hour earlier in eastern India than in the west.
 * 2) Begin with an introductory sentence that describes the problems with the ist. (Wikimachine 12:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC))
 * Reply. Both problems addressed. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum. Being "too short" isn't an actionable concern unless what is missing is pointed out. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ummm... too short is not actionable. You would have to state what content it lacks that it is too short. And lenght is not a problem. We have a couple of featured articles shorter than this. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  00:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In comparative sense, many other standard time articles should also be featured articles if this should one also, for example Time in Australia. This should apply for good article, if it wants to try. Additional topics that could expand this article are broadcasting concerns, list of metropolitan areas/states within the zone, inaccuracy & standards (in relation to Earth's orbit & rotation & axis), & anomalies. I didn't think of these out of blue, they are in other time zone articles such as Central European Time, etc. (Wikimachine 03:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC))
 * Time in Australia is hardly referenced (no inline refs), and what is more important, I don't even see it going to FAC, so there is no question of it being rejected on grounds that it is short. If the referencing concerns are addressed, I am sure that TiA can also be a featured article. For comparison, Crushing by elephant is nearly the same size as this one, and it is a featured article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But we're not talking about referencing, I think this article's fine in that. & as I've mentioned in the section below, justification is not necessary. This is probably the first time when a standard time article becomes a featured article (if it does). So it needs different standards. And I think that this article needs to be really good to make a worthy precedent for other standard time articles to follow. And I personally don't think that those other articles about exploding whale, Crushing by elephant, Japanese toilets, etc. should be featured articles. (Wikimachine 17:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC))
 * Can you elucidate what you mean by "broadcasting concerns". The list of metropolitan areas in the zone would be useless as it has been mentioned in the first sentence of the lead that IST is followed throughout India, without any exceptions. Inaccuracies & standards WRT Earth's orbit are better discussed in a dedicated article like Equation of time, and the same info need not be repeated in all the time zone articles as it is beyond their scope. Anyway, thanks for pointing out this relevant topic and I have added it to the "See also" section. Anomalies usually occur when there is different standard prevailing for places that should have a common standard. Since IST is applied everywhere, there are no anomalies. Of course, a single standard comes with its own set of problems, which have been discussed in the "Problems" section. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Inaccuracies & standards are specific to this article because they vary among different time zones. I don't expect readers to be able to go to Indian Standard Time Zone, go to Equation of Time, calculate the differences & anomalies & the say "aha!".
 * You could add something about the time zone's uniformity. Another user could never know what's missing & what's not. About broadcasting concern, I don't think that this zone has one because as you said it is standard throughout all of India. (Wikimachine 17:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC))


 * Comment A few of the paragraphs in the History section are without citations. Gzkn 05:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply. Done. Please tell if more are required. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you got them all. I am concerned, however, with the recent addition of a trivia section, which should usually be avoided. Gzkn 07:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have removed it as a Trivia section is not recommended for FAs. To preserve the information for future development, I have re-created the article here. Hope this is acceptable. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The image Image:IST-CIA-TZ.png is no longer correct. Sri Lanka now follows IST. Right now that is the most "visible" gaffe. Secondly the line that DST was used in the 62, 65 and 71 wars states "to reduce civilian energy consumption." but the source doesn't mention that as the reason, in fact it doesn't give any reason why it was used. It's only an assumption that DST is mostly used to save energy. While it's the most likely reason a cite would be better. Idleguy 08:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply. The image has been updated now. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering that energy saving is primary (if not only) reason for DST, is a reference really required? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Given that it was used as a wartime measure, it could also have been used in order to deter night lights serving as a beacon for enemy planes if they attacked cities late in the evening or at the crack of dawn. That's a possibility, that's why a source stating the reason would be better. Many war time memories state that vehicles were asked to switch off lights for this purpose as few military planes had night vision. Idleguy 18:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but that's technically called a blackout, not a DST. The source clearly mentions DST, not blackout. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Such a possibility might have used it as a deterrance measure, but it would be more suited to the border areas rather than changing the timezone of the entire country. Again this would be speculative. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  00:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The article's history says vipala is the smallest unit of measuring time based on hindu traditions. But according to Hindu astronomy, half a nimesa (ardha nimesa) is the smallest one. After doing some math I found that vipala works out to 1/216,000th of a day while half a nimesa is 1/405000 day according to that article. One of these must be wrong, or maybe I'm confused. Idleguy 11:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply. I have fixed it. I searched again and found prativa pala as the smallest unit (=.006 s). Thanks for pointing out the inconsistancy. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Oppose . There are still a couple of issues including the citation not matching what is written. For instance, note #2 points to a BBC article that only says that the issue was being investigated and doesn't say anything about it was not recommended, or the reasons why it was not adopted. I found that an earlier mention to the hindu article was wrongly pointed to some other website, but I corrected it myself. The article has to say why it was not adopted with proper cite. Also, the article should mention the official internet page where the time can be checked. AIR and Doordarshan are mentioned, but I'm assuming that an official website exists somewhere. Idleguy 14:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll be overseeing it over the weekend. Thanks! =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've checked all the references and it seems to be ok. Also updated the dates accessed.
 * As for DST, the article on it Daylight Savings Time does not list any other reasons why it may be used other than energy savings.
 * Added reason why timezones were rejected by Govt of India. Real coup as I got it from a Rajya Sabha transcript.
 * Added more text to the article.
 * Added a link where the IST can be checked.
 * =Nichalp  «Talk»=  17:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Other reasons for DST from the article says it reduces crime and traffic accidents and encouraging outdoor activities. -Idleguy 14:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Good compact article. Meets FA criteria. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is licensing Image:IST-CIA-TZ.png as pd-self acceptable, considering it is a derived work?--thunderboltz(Deepu) 17:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply. I am sure it is. The original work is licensed as a PD-self, which means that the author doesn't claim any right on the image any more. This means that there is no authorship claim on the image and the image is truly free. This allows anyone to pass on the image under any license, even as a self-created work. However, to make things clear that the image has been sourced from such a work, a link to the original image has been provided. Even this, I believe, is courtesy, not a requirement considering the waiver of all rights over the image by the original author. Note that even the original work is derived from PD work, i.e. CIA World Factbook, and claimed as PD-self. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Thank you. That sounds logical. You have my support. For conspiracy theorists: I have been following this article since it had been in PR, and I believe it discusses the subject matter to the standards required by featured content.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 13:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support A nice article with a length that does not intimidate. We need more of these.  --Blacksun 19:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: A great article with detailed information ("Indian Standard Time (IST) is the time observed throughout India, with a time offset of UTC+5:30. India does not observe daylight saving time (DST) or other seasonal adjustments, although DST was used briefly during the Sino–Indian War of 1962, and the Indo–Pakistani Wars of 1965 and 1971") that covers the history as well as problems of Indian Standard Time. [[Image:EtruscanS-01.png|15px]] [[Image:PhoenicianD-01.png|15px]] [[Image:Greek lc pi icon.svg|15px]] ( User •  Talk ) 00:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support This article is well written and well referenced with appropriate use of inline citations. Jay32183 18:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Here & Absolute Oppose

 * I checked national identity of the 7 Wikipedians (besides me) who participate in this featured article promotion.
 * 6/7 Wikipedians are Indians.
 * 3/7 Wikipedians here edited the article.
 * Absolutely Oppose.
 * Conspiracy.
 * Unless you bring in more third party voters, I'm reporting this to a higher branch in Wikipedia, such as the Arbitration Committee. (Wikimachine 03:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC))
 * Hmmm...if this indeed were a conspiracy, you would have already seen my support on the article. I supported the article in the last FAC, but since I now consider it a semi co-nom as I have edited the article a lot, I haven't shown my "Support" for the article. Also, if you were regular at FAC, you would have seen Spangineer as a neutral and (ahem....) ruthless participator in FAC debates. Also, it is a good thing if the reviewers make a good faith effort in improving the article. If you see my edit history, you would have seen that I edit almost 80~90% of the articles I see during FAC. Again, you need not worry about these things as FAC is not even a !vote, and a single valid objection is enough to sink the article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If there were conspiracies, Idleguy and Deepujoseph would have registered support, rather than raising concerns that could sink the FAC. I see 3 Indians who have supported this, and 2 Indians who have raised concerns. (Me and Nichalp have not !voted as this is a co-nom). So it is anybody's guess if this is conspiracy to promote or reject. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * \FAC is not a vote. No one is obliged to bring in third party votes. If you have some objections regarding the content of the article, then it would be useful to all if you could list them. If you can't find any points to object, then your conspiracy theory is moot as according to you the article is already FA standards. Please note that Raul does not just count the number of votes while promoting articles, but also checks if all the concerns by other editors have been addressed. And then there is also AGF. Regards, - Aksi_great (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I also want to add that Wikimachine's opposition due to what he/she perceives as an "Indian conspiracy" is quite offensive and has nothing to do with the content of the article. Gzkn 07:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I find it really funny that Wikimachine wants to push it to arbitration. If he so wishes he may do so, but please do remember what the Arbcom is meant for before you submit your case. Don't say we didn't warn you if your case is unanimously thrown out. Next, five of the people who have commented/supported the article have at least one featured article to their name. So your case of a people blindly voting based on their nationality seems to be a matter of making wild accusations which I consider offensive as you haven't researched on who is reviewing the article. If the article is as bad as you say, why don't you help us by telling us what criteria of WP:WIAFA it does not meet? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I never meant it as Indian conspiracy. But this is what I consider internal systemic bias. I can imagine a group of foreigners who only participate in articles regarding topics pertaining to their own culture/history & since they are the only ones participating in it, they could be the only ones participating in the featured article candidate discussion & thus making featured article status inevitable.
 * Foreigners? I'm not sure which country you're from, so I'm not sure which nationalities you would consider foreigners. Would an article on an American topic that was passed by mostly American editors qualify for similar suspicion? What about Canada? The UK? MLilburne 18:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am interested in what group did you classify me? I hold an American Passport but live and work in Netherlands while also having Indian ancestry.  Please note, my utter disgust and strong offense at your attempt to classify me and other wikipedians on racial or ethnic groups and implying that our input/vote is based on anything but the quality of the article.   --Blacksun 12:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Foreigners as people who aren't English-speaking Europeans.
 * In my invitation for various WikiProjects, I've posted this: "I want to note that Indians are a special exception from other nationalities in Wikipedia because most of them can speak and write fluent English & thus can participate more in English Wikipedia while other foreigners can't & thus limit their participation in fields related to their nationality/culture & making participation of other third parties more likely.", thus clarifying my cooperative stance with Indians yet focusing on the internal systemic bias.
 * As for Americans/British/etc. editing English leading to POVness/systemic bias, see WikiProject countering systemic bias. Furthermore, I think that users of other nationalities have different incentives from those of Americans/British/Canadians/Australians/etc. in editing the English Wikipedia. The first being the expansion & promotion of articles related to their culture/history/country, as a means of resisting the systemic bias of the majority, not only in Wikipedia but also in society. And English Wikipedia, written under the international language, is the best and most productive means of achieving this goal. The majority in the English Wikipedia are mostly English-speaking people, and therefore do not have any incentive to do so.
 * Blacksun, I'm sorry that you were offended (and others too), but I did not do the classification myself. I looked at user pages of each of the voters in the fac earlier.
 * Nej - you indeed classified me based on false assumptions. No where in my userpage I mention anything about my nationality.  You made a false assumption based on couple of barnster awards or user activity. --Blacksun 22:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * One exception was you. (Wikimachine 22:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC))
 * What I did I did as part of WikiProject countering systemic bias. (Wikimachine 03:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC))
 * I'm disregarding the fact that some of you "commented" instead of "voting" & I'm not going to check editing history of every one of you b/c (1) I don't think I can (2) Too many (3) Simpler option: bring in third party.
 * I'd say third party is absolutely needed, regardless of whether something is a vote or not. Community consensus means not only opinions from one type of nationality/culture, but a mix.
 * It fails to comply with 1 (b): "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details. I've listed additional topics that the article could cover (since other standard time articles cover them) & there is no reason why if this should be a featured article, others should be also.
 * "Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant. I've noted few format/style problems, and I can note much more brilliant quality in other featured articles. There's no reason why because some featured articles were nominated in shorter form than this one this one should be. Maybe, we need to correct our previous mistakes. This type of justification is unnecessary.
 * This is a vote, that's why voting's taking place (?). The paragraph in the very top part of this page says that consensus must be reached. Quotation from the article Consensus:
 * Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. However, when supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus.
 * (Wikimachine 16:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC))
 * I'm bringing in third parties from WikiProject Countering systemic bias, random admins, etc. So don't close this vote yet. (Wikimachine 16:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC))
 * You are free to bring in more editors to weigh on this article and we would appreciate any additional feedback on the article. But as mentioned earlier, I would repeat that unlike the processes like RfA where numbers can't be disregarded, FACs depend totally on merit and even a single valid opposition is good enough to stop the article from being a featured article. If you don't believe me, ask Raul, who handles FAC promotions. Also, there are reasons why some people restrict themselves to a category of articles. One of them is that they are confident in their knowledge in that particular field only, and are in better position to comment on comprehensiveness. For example, if I ask you to review Chalukya Dynasty, you would hadly be in a position to comment anything other than spelling and grammer. So I see it a positive sign that people only pass their judgment on what they are confident about. Secondly, the Indian Wikiproject is a very active workgroup with lot of closely working people so that whenever any help is needed, there are always a big group of people to refer to. This has helped us in our previous endevours to get FAs as even before the articles are submitted for FA, there is very rigourous review of the article by the workgroup itself. I wouldn't be wrong to say that selection into the Indian portal is one of the biggest challenge that could be faced by an article after FAC. You won't see that in case of this article, as Nichalp already has 10 FA under his belt so he knows what are the common mistakes and objections. For example see the recently concluded discussion on Culture of Thiruvananthapuram article to get selected into the Indian Portal. Would you say that there is conspiracy for selection to even Indian Portal? Coming back to the issues of merits of the article (which probably should be our primary concern). I have addressed all concerns raised by you except for the "broadcasting concerns" which I am unable to comprehend. If you can clarify what you want, even that can be addressed. As regards to quality of prose, please point out where the article lacks, as it is very difficult for us if you don't even point out where the article lacks. With regards to the size of the article, even I don't want that to be a part of the debate, but I remember that you first brought that into picture and I had to address that. Personally speaking, I feel that we should talk about this specific article, rather than any general article. Finally, I again repeat that FAC is not a !vote. Hope this clears the doubts in your mind. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am changing my stance. I've looked at all other standard time articles in process of searching for what this article might lack.... But most other time zone articles have one word/sentence & then list of metropolitan areas. So I am willing to support if you would add something about the anomalies in rotation, etc. in the Problem sections. But let users that I've invited comment also as due process of reaching consensus. (Wikimachine 17:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC))
 * Thank you for your change in stance. Do you suggest we duplicate information from Equation of time to all time articles in this list? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Kind of, but aren't there anomalies specific to the time zone? (Wikimachine 21:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC))

Support It support the article. Amartyabag 12:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support The the expansion of the Problems section to include the anomalies specific to the time zone has been done. All grammar and prose problems that I have identified were fixed. This is the best time zone article available & will set good standards for later time zone featured articles. (Wikimachine 03:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC))
 * If you support now, can you please strike off the addressed concerns in your "Oppose" vote before. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The following WikiProjects have been notified: Countering systemic bias, Japan, Germany, Russia, United States. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, I am here because of the comment left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany. It is preposterous to object to an FAC on the grounds that the most people voting (and yes, FAC is a vote, it's not like AFD here) are interested in the article. This is certainly true for every other FAC ever since the beginning of Wikipedia. People who are interested in the article are the ones who come to vote on whether it should be an FA. Big deal. —Angr 17:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * While I don't disagree with your larger point, I just wanted to point out that FAC most definitely is not a vote. --RobthTalk 16:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I think it's kind of silly that things came out this way, but I was called here from a note at WP:JP. I think the article is well-sourced and broad enough, but there are some problems with the prose. Grammatically, there are several verbs that don't go with their preprositions. There are also some run-ons and hyphens incorrectly used in place of en/em-dashes, etc. The prose should be clean and tight in a featured article. Dekimasu 00:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Further comment. While I don't want to get heavily involved in this discussion, I did click on the featured article at Chalukya Dynasty. I was impressed by the detail and breadth and sourcing. However, I came across phrasing like "It brought about some remarkable achievements in the myriad realms of culture, particularly in the evolution and proliferation of their unique style of architecture known as Vesara, a combination of the South Indian and the North Indian building styles. Chalukyas have left behind their legacy of some of the most beautiful monuments." There are prose and NPOV problems there. While not the result of intentional bias on the part of the editors, these statements do not belong in a featured article in this form, and perhaps it is the very way that the article topic is opaque to most foreigners that causes that type of thing to be missed. Of course it's not a conspiracy, but I can understand objections to the tone. The featured articles on British topics, say, have been read and seen and edited by more editors before being promoted. This has probably resulted in more ironing-out of problems with the articles. That is not to fault the nominator here or of any other article on an Indian topic, as we all work with whoever we can draw to our projects; no one mentioned this problem in a peer review that happened only last month. However, prose style is a big issue when the overall goal is to make Wikipedia articles unbiased and verifiable. The phrases "remarkable achievements" and "some of the most beautiful monuments" can never be verified because they are subjective. They may very well be beautiful and remarkable, but to say so isn't encyclopedic. ...And I know we are not here to talk about the Chalukya Dynasty, so I will turn off the objections now. Dekimasu 01:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Nick,
 * Thanks for taking time to review the article. I have fixed the hyphens used incorrectly for endashes, but couldn't find any occurance that would need an emdash. As I told to Wikimachine before, can you please point out the places you feel the article lacks, because if we could see any better, we would have already fixed it. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have given another copyedit to the article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I came over from WikiProject: Countering systemic bias. Foreigners? What does that mean anyway? Is this a country? I guess I am a foreigner (as defined by Wikimachine) as I am not an English-speaking European (although I am an American). It is not unusual (as pointed by Angr) for people interested in an article to work on it and vote it to FA. That has always gone on. Usually, they are not seen as "foreigners", so I can only hazard a guess that is what brought this on. I don't think we should discourage what is going on here, and especially not under the guise of countering systemic bias. There is no conspiracy here. Just hard-working editors seeking to bring information that is usually not added, from a background quite different than many on English Wikipedia. We should encourage this, as that is why the countering systemic bias project was formed in the first place. --C S (Talk) 00:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- Looks good. Saravask 20:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the problems section should be expanded. For eg: I had read in a newspaper a few years back that assam and the north eastern states wanted to change the IST because the local time is 1 hour forward than IST. I'll try to add that infoin the article.-- Agεθ020 ( ΔT  •  ФC ) 21:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply. This infor is already present. The following sentence summarizes it: "Inhabitants of the north–eastern states have long demanded a separate time zone to advance their clocks with the early sunrise and avoid the extra consumption of energy after daylight hours." Reference is also provided for the same. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - referred from WikiProject Germany. I have two suggestions for improvement, both minor. I agree that the article is comprehensive and well sourced, but would love to see some references from printed, not online sources. Also, the first sentence of the "History" section, specifically the phrase "...which according to them", strikes me as clumsy. However, these concerns are nowhere near big enough to prevent it from reaching featured status, IMO. Badbilltucker 23:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply. The 'clumsiness' has been removed. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support; informative, well-writen prose, good images and generally worthy of FA. La  ï  ka  11:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I was wondering about daylight saving time that was used in two wars. This should be an important fact, because it is re-iterated in the lead section. However, the main article only explains it in a single sentence and it is an orphan paragraph. I'd like to learn more about this fact. Could editors expand that stubby paragraph?
 * Another important fact in the lead is the contradiction clauses of this sentence: "Local time is calculated from a clock tower at the Allahabad Observatory (25.15° N 82.5° E) though the official time servers are located in New Delhi." Why can't I find it in the main article? I want to know why there are two different time calculations?
 * &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 13:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Object per my unanswered comments above and the following other comments, as of the time of my review :
 * Comprehensiveness. The article is too short to be featured. Many portions of the article is about the history of time zones in India, so I would suggest to rename the title into "Time Zones in India" or something like that.
 * Unreliable sources:
 * http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/ is full of ads and not a reliable webpage because the author is unknown. This source is used in most part of the article with 4 citations.
 * http://www.irfca.org/faq/faq-misc.html is only a FAQ list from an electronic mailing list or discussion group written by railfans (see About IRFCA). Again, authors cannot be said reliable.
 * http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/dec2001/msg00221.html is an email, definitely unreliable.
 * &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 15:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Replies: Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Replying:
 * 1) Sources: 1. http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/ authors are known: (credits), and see the [http://wwp.greenwich2000.ltd.uk/legal.htm legal notice too about accuracy. Ads does not mean that the site is necessarily uncredible. 2. Ifrca is a very credible site contrary to what is says about it being just a mailing list (those were it's origins). Infact most of Indian Railways and Rail transport in India have been sourced from the site. And their content is internally peer reviewed before publishing, and many newpapers do source their content from this site. 3. I don't know about the third reference, I can't find a better one, so would remove it perhaps?
 * 2) Length: there are many short featured articles, (see WP:WIAFA) where short articles are also included. This is unactionable unless you tell us what content it lacks. You said something about DST, what sort of content are you looking for?
 * 3) Title: No, the article is about the development of the IST. How different timezones were merged into one and what the country used before that. It won't be a good idea to change the title just based on the content of one section. It was used for not more than 10 days.   =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Mirzapur and Delhi. At Mirzapur, IST is the local time. The acutal mechanisms which are calibrated +5:30 UTC are not on that longitude, but further westward, in New Delhi. That is what the meaning implies.
 * Response:
 * Yes, the authors are known in source (1), but the website is not preferred. It looks like spam links, although I know editors of this article don't have anything to do with ads in those website. If there is other preferred, possibly academic, sources, then please replace those sources.
 * I am not questioning the credibility of IRFCA as an organization, but taking maling list discussion from individuals as source here, for me, is not a good practice. It would be reliable if the source (2) is a press release documents or reports from IRFCA, but not FAQ. If other WP articles use that kind of source, then it does not mean that the source is reliable.
 * If you can't find a better reference for the source (3), then please remove it and also the fact that comes from it.
 * Yes, length is not a WIAFA criterion, but I'm still feeling that the article is not comprehensive enough. Unless if the subject is "History of Time Zones in India", for example.
 * I was asking DST that is said to be used only for the two wars. It is written in the lead, but there is only a single sentence in the main article, which is just a copy-pasted from . In the lead, it is written:
 * India does not observe daylight saving time (DST) or other seasonal adjustments, although DST was used briefly during the Sino–Indian War of 1962, and the Indo–Pakistani Wars of 1965 and 1971.
 * For me, it is an interesting thing, but there is only this stubby orphaned paragraph in the main article:
 * During the Sino–Indian War of 1962, and the Indo–Pakistani Wars of 1965 and 1971, daylight saving was briefly used to reduce civilian energy consumption.
 * I want to know why if DST could reduce civilian energy consumption during the war, but it is not used in other time? Why was it said that only civilian energy consumption were reduced in the war? Were there any specific advantages to the army by using DST? Oh, and please don't answer these questions here, but in the article.
 * &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 09:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) other preferred, possibly academic, sources, then please replace those sources – If I could get my hands on such, I certainly wouln't hesitate to update the references. As mentioned in the nom, I can add new text subject to the availability of references. An article as obscure as this, does not have too much dedicated material on it. To illustrate this point, see this this
 * 2) I've removed the text on the trial
 * 3) Online or print references for using DST are not available at the moment, so can't add.
 * Reply:
 * Nichalp wrote: "An article as obscure as this, does not have too much dedicated material on it. To illustrate this point, see this this" → that is why I cannot support this article to be featured. Sources used in this article are not yet reliable.
 * To add of what I have said that this article is not comprehensive enough, and Nichalp said "This is unactionable unless you tell us what content it lacks.", actually, you pointed to me one of them from the Google Books' search result that you gave. One of the book has an interesting and important aspect of IST that affect ordinary life in India. Please see this:, where labour time in a factory has been affected by the IST. This is still missing in the article and I guess a lot more aspects beside labour time.
 * Ah, thank you for pointing me that search. I found one more. Chapter 8 of this book: "What's This India Bussiness?" (ISBN 1904838006) has title: IST - Indian S t r e t c h a b l e Time, which describes the difficulty in India to have IST for arranging meeting, bussiness, etc. I would like to see that more in this article.
 * &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 09:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply: =Nichalp  «Talk»=  06:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Answering 2: I can't find a specific instance to the string "labour time". The link does not mention anything about it I'm afraid.
 * Answering 3: Indian Strechable Time was added for a short time as a trivia, but Gzkn recommended we not add this (see above). As such, mentioning the habits of people in an article in an encouraging or disparaging way is considered to be a POV on wikipedia despite references on the same.
 * Response:
 * Response (2): It doesn't necessarily to be strictly an exact phrase. The book contains information about the influence of IST for labour time in Indian factories. To give an outlook of what this book is about, I typed one paragraph from it.


 * Response (3): I didn't ask editors to put Indian Stretcheable Time, but in that book there are information about Indian Standard Time that creates difficulty for bussiness. Is it trivia? No. It is different aspect of the subject of this article, as to get more comprenhensive.
 * One more source: http://cires.colorado.edu/~bilham/Oldham1881account.htm is broken in the following citation:
 * 
 * According to the last web archive on 5 Januari 2006 (not 25 November 2006!!), the webpage is a reprint from Proc. Asiatic Society of Bengal, March 1883. p.60. Somebody should take a look at this article to verify that factual data that is written in this article are correct.
 * For me, sources of the article currently for this FAC nomination are still vague: Google-ads websites, FAQ of mailing list discussions, an email (was removed) and now a dead link.
 * &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash;

"At Calcutta the time of arrival of the earthquake was noted by Mr. James Murray, who writes, in reply to my inquiries, that he was reading in an upstairs room when feeling the shock he immediately ran downstairs and marked on the glass of his standard regulating clock, the exact position of the second's hand and then waited to note the time of cessation of motion; afterwards he carefully took with a second's watch the time that occupied to do all he done between the moment he first felt the shock and when he made the first mark on the clock, adding this and the error of the clock on that morning, he obtained the times of commencement and cessation as 7:37:45 and 7:42:00 Calcutta Mean time, or 7:55:02 and 7:59:17 Port Blair mean time, respectively. This, I may add, is the only observation of real value made at the time and not automatically recorded that I know of in connection with this shock."
 * 1) On Tea Plantations: To answer #1, from the example you cited, A Time for Tea actually talks about exploitation, that phrase has little to do with problems associated with the time-zone. Now as mentioned in the article, there is a legislation that allows factories in a local area to change the local time. If it is exploitation, it does not imply that IST is affected, or refer a generalised statement that this is what happens because of the time shift for factor/plantation time.
 * 2) On stretchable time: I'm still not convinced. Quoting from the book: Indian Stretchable Time, the usual version of what  IST stands for, is a brilliant excapsulation of so many attitudes and perspectives. However, it isn't mystical. – The term is coined on the for the fact that many in India have the tendancy to arrive late. This may be a problem for businesses etc, but th core concept relates to the personal habits of people in India, and not the time zone, or a problem with it. None of the above two examples can really add to the "comprehensiveness" of the article.
 * 3) On the CIRES link : I can hit the link, not sure what the problem was there: Here is the extract if you're interested:

"At Madras a clock in the office of the Master Attendant, electronically controlled from the astronomical observatory, was stopped at 07:05:45 local time or 07:55:36 Port Blair mean time." =Nichalp  «Talk»=  04:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd better add, for Wikimachine's statistics: white, male, lives in Uk, hetrosexual, Catholic, visited India (inc Jaipur & Dehli Jantar Mantars) and Bhutan. Probably I'm a foreigner - not sure. Any other info you need, just let me know! Johnbod 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Johnbod 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good; I have touched up the language in a few places, I hope without altering meaning. I thought there were a lot of hyphenated phrases (I've left): "four-member", "time-zone" & others, that maybe could go.
 * Comments 1) Bhutan & BD are presumably on +6 hours, but the map with the zones doesn't say so. I would make the map bigger- or maybe you can't make it big enough to read off the page.
 * 2) I didn't really understand the bit about the terrorist's lawyer in Mumbai. It says he "argued" by "stalling" - they don't work together. What were his motives?
 * 3) I was curious in reading it - how many "prativa pala"s to a solar day? Too lazy to use my calculator, & maybe too big a number for the first para.
 * 1. The map does show the timezone as +6. (The text is at the bottom). I'm working on an SVG version which will replace this rather silly looking one. 2. Um... Tilak wasn't a terrorist. He was arrested to having alleged links to a bomb blast. I think the stalling motives are clear... he kinda stalled proceedings in the assembly against a switch. Since the issue was minor and public sentiment was against the British, they shelved it as it was deadlocked. Was this clearer? Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  16:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Johnbod 17:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ok - I can see both points now, but did not before, which may tell you something. It sounded like the objection to the time zone was a tactic in the trial defence. If the barrister was not involved in the actual trial, you might drop the word barrister (confusing to non-foreigners anyway). I would go with "further antagonising" rather than antagonization.
 * I've removed that paragraph based on credibility concerns. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Looks pretty good. (I did copy-edit this a while ago at Nichalp's request.) Tony 15:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support from non-Indian, non-Hindu, never been to India....etc...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)