Wikipedia:Peer review/Famine in India/archive1

Famine in India
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…


 * I would like critique on what needs to be done in order to make this a GA
 * POV tags have been added unsuccessfully in the past by mostly editors originating from UK - how can this be tackled without compromising historical facts presented in the article?

Thanks, Zuggernaut (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unsuccessfully? Only because you removed them. This editor has a track record of introducing POV to articles, relating to his own strongly held views against the British Empire. He's been turning his article into a one-sided essay arguing that it was the British who caused famine. I would suggest that this article is in too much of a state of flux for a peer review. Better to join in on the talk page.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the history of the NPOV tag added on two occasions now:
 * User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick added a POV tag to this article on September 19, 2010.
 * I took the matter to the NPOV noticeboard on September 27, 2010 which said this wasn't a matter of POV.
 * Based on the NPOV noticeboard responses, I took off the POV tag on September 28, 2010.
 * The same user added back the POV tag on October 8, 2010.
 * Diff between the very 1st wrongly alleged POV and the currently alleged POV is here. No specific reasons have been provided by the user on the talk page about why the POV tag was added back. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is in an absolutely terrible state thanks to Zuggernauts POV insertions which other people have questioned. Id recommend restoring the text to before Zuggernaut started his "improvements" then there probably would be no need for tags. He is giving undue weight to views that seek to blame problems on a lack of democracy and one mans point of view specifically, when in fact there are many issues. To give the democracy point undue weight is clearly problematic and also misleading. And sadly there is a growing track record, where he seeks to make alterations to many different articles clearly based on his negative views of Empire. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Peer review is not a forum for dispute resolution. The article has a neutrality banner (which disqualifies it from PR) and there is much current discussion on this issue on the talkpage. Until the article is reasonably stable, with the main banner removed by consensus, it is not appropriate that this review should continues, and I have closed it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)