Template:Did you know nominations/Ministry of Shipping (India)
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Rcsprinter123 (discourse) @ 16:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Ministry of Shipping (India)[edit]
- ... that India's current Ministry of Shipping was historically part of the Department of Communications?
- Reviewed: First nomination. No QPQ required. Self nominated at 10:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC).
Length, newness, cites and hook all check. No QPQ required. Good to go! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maury Markowitz (talk • contribs) 12:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's ready yet. The article could do with some basic punctuation. The latter half is closely paraphrased from this copyrighted source and needs to be rewritten. Also, the graph prior to that section needs some axis labels to explain what it is trying to depict (I'm assuming year vs. tonnage - need units for tonnage). Fuebaey (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- I will correct the table and the punctuation. But I may not be able to rephrase the lower half as its is full of statistical data. Please suggest me how should I rephrase it. Thank You! --Sukrut Phansalkar (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Going back over it, I'm not even sure if this statistical data is even necessary. The article is on India's governmental department on sea transportation and the stats are on port usage. Ports are relevant to shipping, but the article is on the organisation not the actual activity. Most of the information is already adequately covered at Transport in India#Ports and shipping and I don't see a real reason to include it here. On other points:
- There's no need to explain why marine transportation is important. Merge the Introduction section into the lead and link it to Ship transport or omit it entirely.
- History is copy pasted from shipping.nic.in but copyright has been waived. Producer gas is linked to a product not a manufacturing process. Is this meant to link this way? I can't seem to tell from the original source. [1]
- The top part under Organisational setup is a mess. Bullet points need to be written in prose or converted into a layout similar to the rest of the section.
- Acronyms like PSU and FDI need expanding - it's not immediately obvious as to what they stand for.
- I'm guessing that English isn't your primary language, though I applaud you for your efforts nontheless. But it comes across in this article and makes it difficult to read. Overall, it needs a good copyedit before coming back.
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but this needs substantial work before it can hit DYK and I don't see it happening in the near future. Fuebaey (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Going back over it, I'm not even sure if this statistical data is even necessary. The article is on India's governmental department on sea transportation and the stats are on port usage. Ports are relevant to shipping, but the article is on the organisation not the actual activity. Most of the information is already adequately covered at Transport in India#Ports and shipping and I don't see a real reason to include it here. On other points:
- I will correct the table and the punctuation. But I may not be able to rephrase the lower half as its is full of statistical data. Please suggest me how should I rephrase it. Thank You! --Sukrut Phansalkar (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
