Wikipedia:Peer review/Bharat Ratna/archive1

Bharat Ratna

I've listed this article for peer review because this is a current GA. Being India's highest civilian award, it holds the utmost importance and thus I am planning to take it to FAC in the near future. Any constructive comments are appreciated. Thanks, - Vivvt (Talk) 18:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Resolved comments from Tim riley

I'm afraid I can't spare the time for a really thorough review, but here are a few quick comments: Lead "Most recently, Indian government" – is there a definite article missing after the comma? Also, while I'm on this sentence, it will fall foul of WP:DATED pretty quickly as these are annual awards. At the very least I'd add "as at 2015" or some such. Done History "past recipients were asked not to use the awards as a title" – I don't quite follow this, as we are told in the following section that the awards never confer a title. Removed the sentence. Regulations "Recipients whose awards have been revoked are required to surrender their medal, and their name to be struck from the register" – the syntax goes off the rails a bit here. Recipients (plural) have a name (singular), and the infinitive "to be" should be "are". You don't, by the bye, say whether this provision has ever been put into practice. Done Specifications "A year later, however, the design was modified" – why the "however"? It adds nothing and weakens the prose. Done List of recipients "Visvesvaraya was knighted as a Commander of the British Indian Empire by King George V" – I think you have the imperial honour slightly wrong. A Commander (C.I.E.) of the Order of the Indian Empire would not have been a knight. Visvesvaraya was a K.C.I.E. – a Knight Commander of the Order). Done "Nehru is the first" – was the first, perhaps? I am not sure on this. Though he is dead and all the references to him should be made in past, he still remains the first PM of the country. "The "monumental" work" – not clear why the inverted commas are wanted Just to avoid peacock terms, the word is quoted from a reference. "during Indo-Pakistani War of 1965" – missing a definite article? Done "During Indo-Pakistani War of 1971" – ditto Done "Nobel peace prize" – the WP article capitalises "peace prize", and I think it should be capitalised here, too. Done "and a close associate with Mahatma Gandh" – "of" rather than "with"? Done "he was awarded with Nobel Peace Prize" – another missing definite article. And I notice here and elsewhere the construction "awarded with" various honours: perhaps it's a WP:ENGVAR thing, but to me the "with" is not wanted: one is simply awarded the honour, prize etc. Done "called with the honorific title" – called by? Done "Aerospace and Defense Scientist" – why the capitals on Defense (defence?) and Scientist? Done "Social choice theory, ethics and political philosophy, welfare economics, Decision theory, Development economics, public health, and Gender studies" – some very odd capitalistion here Done "Sitar" – why capitalised? Done "He also has authored around 1600 research papers – authored? Couldn't he just have written them? I think "authored" is more appropriate because he does not write the research papers himself. He provides the basic idea and has a team which does rest of the job. Thats where the controversy related to his work publishing 1400 research paper comes in. Best of luck with the article, and I hope these few points are helpful. – Tim riley talk 21:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC) @Tim riley: Thanks for the review. I really appreciate your time. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from RO

Resolved comments from Rationalobserver

Lead Instituted on 2 January 1954 Absent a compelling reason to be so specific, this might be better with just the year, as the lead is a summary. Done the award is conferred "in recognition of exceptional service/performance of the highest order", without distinction of race, occupation, position, or sex. Per WP:LEADCITE, this needs in-line attribution. I have not provided in-line citations in the lead per following mention at WP:LEADCITE. "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." That applies to paraphrased/summarized material, but any and all direct quotes need inline citations even in the lead. RO(talk) 16:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC) @Rationalobserver: Thanks for the clarification. I wasnt aware of the clause related to quotes. I have made the necessary changes. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC) "any field of human endeavour" Same as above Done but are constitutionally prohibited from using the award name as a title. If the reasoning can be briefly explained than consider doing so. Otherwise, maybe leave this point out of the lead. Removed The original statutes did not provide for posthumous awards but were amended in January 1955 to permit them. This might be overly detailed for the lead, but maybe not. I am also not sure. So, will keep it as is for now. The second paragraph of the lead has lots of dates. Some of these might not be necessary. Removed the "posthumous" mention of Bose was much criticised, Drop the scare quotes. Done History A year later on 15 January 1955 Either state it was a year later or include the date, but don't do both. Kept date to maintain consistency. became the youngest person and first sports-person Swap "sports-person" with athlete. Done As of 2015, the award has been conferred upon 45 people with 12 posthumous declarations. Each paragraph should end in a citation. Done Regulations Under the terms of Article 18 (1) of the Constitution of India,[b] the recipients cannot use the award as a prefix or suffix to their name, Why not? Detailed explanation is not mentioned in the constitution. That's why I didnt provide any further details...just to avoid WP:OR. Specifications A year later, the design was modified to the form that is currently in use. Drop "to the form that is currently in use." Done List of recipients This might be better at the end, rather than in the middle. Done Controversies The introductory sentence needs a citation. Done References I'm seeing a few harv errors at current refs #1, #73, #80, #84, #85, and #88. It looks like you need to add ref Thakur 2010 to the bibliography. Cleaned up the references. Thakur's book is claimed to have plagiarised from Wiki. Conclusion I made a few edits ([1]). This is a fine piece of writing. It's very detailed without being overly so, and the prose is engaging and enjoyable. This is a very nice article. Keep up the great work! RO(talk) 19:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC) @Rationalobserver: I have made changes as per your suggestions. Please let me know if anything else needs to be corrected or changed. - Vivvt (Talk) 12:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Looks very good! Let me know when you take this to FAC. RO(talk) 17:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Sure. Thanks for your time. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Ugog Nizdast

• Overview: Very good work with this, I would be delighted when this does pass FA but I feel that there's a lot of room for improvement. When this does go for the review, I'll be sure to follow it so that we can all learn/celebrate.
• If we look at the History/Regulations sections versus the Controversies/Popular demands, why is there quite a big difference in size? A case of Recentism??
  • That's correct.
• I'm not a fan of sections titled just "Controversies" because most of the time, with some restructuring and section retitling, it can be removed. Let's take a closer look.
  • Can Bose and Tendulkar both be under a heading called something like "Disputed recipients" but that's not right since Bose was never given it.
  • It's called "Constitutional validity (1992)" but I see that it mentions PILs filed asking about titles, so shouldn't it be titled something else? Why is it called validity? Have I missed something?
    • For the above two subpoints, Can you think of anything better? @Rationalobserver and Tim riley: what do you both think? ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I have renamed "Constitutional validity (1992)" to "Civilian awards as 'Titles' (1992)". - Vivvt (Talk) 17:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, make them into proper level subsections per WP:LAYOUT.
  • Bose caption, see WP:CAPFRAG and WP:CAPTION. Frame it in such a way that it draws the readers to the text. Introduce who Bose was and why it created a controversy. That should be tough to make into a succinct caption I'd imagine. Add WP:ALT text to the image.
• I looked up some articles like this subject and found Victoria Cross(FA) and Order of the British Empire. Looking at that, I ask you: Why is there no section for Process, Origin, Precedence and privileges etc? Not that I'm an expert in the topic, but this came to my mind.
  • The award does not have nomination process as for like other civilian awards. Origin is kind of explained under History section. The awards holders are not given any special privileges along with the monetary benefits but are ranked seventh in the order of precedence. This is explained in the article. I added some info about the medal and mint. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Random quibbles:
  • Public-Interest Litigation can be referred to as PILs for the rest of the article. Keep consistent.

    • Done

  • My search says there are 21 instances of the word "also". Usually they add no meaning and can be removed where necessary.

    • Removed

  • Sanad? shouldn't it be sanad? ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
    • The official source/regulation/scheme uses the same case. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dharmadhyaksha

• There are two sections of "Controversies" and "Criticism" and both talk of similar stuff and there is no distinguishing line between the two anyways. Can they be merged?
  • I see this is coming for the second time from another review. Personally, I do not wish to merge the section but can definitely discuss with others.
• Vajpayee did a lot more than write books and his "Notes" give a lot of WP:UNDUE weight to his literary career which, according to me, was trivial and not really the aspect on which he would get this award. Can we write other important stuff here?

  • Done

• Similarly for Malaviya; three red-linked publications aren't worthy enough to mention here. And he "co-founded" BHU.
  • Added info about he being the INC president. Also, BHU official site credits him as the sole founder.
• Bismillah Khan - "centre stage" I suppose.
  • Done. Thanks to you.
• On Dadasaheb Phalke Award I was against adding DOB/D and other such stuff in the list as it had no relation at all. But in this case where posthumous awards are declared, isn't the year of death worthy of mention somewhere somehow in the table? What do other FLs do?
  • I prefer not to add DOB/D. Some of the FLs like List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients and List of Australian George Cross recipients do not mention these dates as well.

The KCoIC list has DODs mentioned for all posthumous entries in notes column. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Added

• JRD - "became the first Indian to get the commercial pilot's license" seems trivial here.

  • Removed

• JRD - More than NCPA I would prefer Tata Motors and TCS to be mentioned that way also including names of companies after calling him "industrialist".

  • Added

• Patel - "He was often called by the honorific title "Sardar" ("Leader")" can be shortened and that space be used to mention his work on unification of Indian princely states post independence.
  • Good point. Added.
• Mandela - His connection with Indians is missing from notes. That should be mentioned somehow. Or else it looks odd why he is the only non-Indian to be enlisted.

  • Done

• Teresa - "She was beatified on 19 October 2003 by Pope John Paul II." unsourced?
  • Rearranged the sources.
• Bhagwan Das - He "co-founded" both universities.
  • Das co-founded Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith with Gandhi. BHU is also known as Kashi Hindu University which is founded by Malaviya.
• Rajagopalachari - "and founder of Indian political party Swatantra Party." unsourced?
  • Rearranged the sources.
• Rajiv Gandhi, Ambedkar, Giri, Kamaraj, Ramachandran - They seem to have very short description as compared with others. That needs to be worded more.
  • Added more info about Ambedkar. Awards to rest four is already been criticised.

Irrespective of criticism we are not exactly writing here why they won award but only writing key notability aspects of them, even if those aspects have been criticized or not. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: Feel free to add the details. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Remind me to do this before you take it to FA. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Recently, when ABV and MMM were awarded, I can see news articles on why Mahatama Gandhi has not be conferred yet with this award. If this demand has been popular enough throughout the time then it needs mention.
  • Added Gandhi under "Popular demand" section. Added Savarkar as well.
• Bose's mention in lead seems undue. Can it be shortened?
  • I dont think its undue as his is the only case when the award was announced but not conferred.
• Also maybe add a general statement summarizing "criticism and controversies" section in the lead about other people.

  • Done

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Ugog Nizdast and Dharmadhyaksha: I have tried addressing some of your comments. Please let me know if anything else needs to be done. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)