Wikipedia:Peer review/George Fernandes/archive1

George Fernandes
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I feel this is a great article about a great personality. Thanks, Xavier449 (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm an American, and I don't know what a bandh is. Of course, now I will go to Google and find out, but if that is not a wikilinked term, it should probably be explained in the article for readers of English outside India. My Google search shows that that word should be wikified. It would be more encyclopedic English to say "arrested" or "detained" (whatever is legally exact) rather than "nabbed."


 * In general, a very interesting article. There are various proof-reading issues to address. Some of the article sections are so short that they probably should be combined. The use of section headings for major incidents is very good. Keep up the good work. I've learned something by reading the article. Any biographical article is more balanced with a bit more criticism of the subject of the article, I think. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry to have taken so long with my comments. WHile he certainly sounds like an interesting person, the article needs a fair amount of work to better follow the Manual of Style and the Biography of Living Persons policies. Here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * First off the article has three disambiguation links as found by the disambig links tool in the toolbox on this page. They will need to be fixed.
 * It also has at least one dead external link according to the external links tool in the same toolbox.
 * The lead should either be cited like everything else or only have refs for extraordinary claims and direct quotations. The current lead is in-between.
 * Watch out for POV and WP:PEACOCK words, like "infamous", "renowned", and "key ally" - if these are direct quotes from a reliable source, they are OK, but otherwise they are not very encyclopedic.
 * Remove uneeded repetition - for example, the Baroda Dynamite case is discussed twice in the article. To my thinking, the second appearance (in COntroversies) is not really needed, as long as it is covered in detail in his career.
 * I also worry that the article is not clear on details of the Baroda Dynamite case, in particular it does not seem to distinguish between accusations and what actually happened. The Emergency era and union ministry section is written in a more neutral tone. There is says he was charged with smuggling dynamite, but not that he actually did it. Since he was tired but never found guilty, unless he actually said / admitted that he actually planned to dynamite bridges (or whatever), the material in the Controvesries section is potentially libelous: They aimed at blasting vital installations on bridges. They procured dynamites from the quarries nearby Baroda. but then it says they were cleared of all charges.
 * I also wonder that the source used for the Controversies section on the dynamite case is "Experiments with truth and non-violence: the Dalai Lama in exile from Tibet" which seems unlikely to be the best source on this topic (the Emergencies section uses what seem like better sources on this).
 * At least the dynamite case has a source - the Support to Secessionist Groups section has a fair amount of material without refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * The prose is uneven - parts are nicely written and others are quite rough. I would get a copyedit if this is going to WP:GAN (need to fix the other issues too).