Talk:Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 13:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. My apologies for the long wait! If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on my talk page, either's fine! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Ganesha811:! Thank you for taking up this review. I'll be watching this page, but responses might get a little delayed. Thank you again and do keep the suggestions coming. :) Ashwin147 (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi! There are a number of sourcing issues with this article. I'm going to keep on going through the sources, but after that will put the rest of the review on hold until source problems are addressed. Sourcing concerns like this could lead to a failure to pass GA, so they'll have to be addressed first before other issues are discussed. Let me know your timeline for being able to address them. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm held up by work during weekdays. But I shall keep checking/rectifying/responding whenever I can catch a break. Ashwin147 (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'm going to put this on hold for a week. However, the sourcing issues are significant, and the list below doesn't even include everything that could be improved. If the sourcing is not dramatically improved, I may have to fail the nomination per WP:GAFAIL issue #1, namely that is a long way from meeting GA criteria #2. I understand that you are busy and that you waited a long time for this review, and if you request it, I can extend the hold for another week to give you more time. The issues are fixable, but it will take a lot of work to fix them. Let me know what you think of all this. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey. Just gimme a little more time. I think I've fixed most of the stuff you'd flagged. The combining of sources bit remains and I'm no good with Visual Editor. So do extend the hold. Ashwin147 (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

We're not at a week yet, but if the hold needs to be extended when it expires on the 6th, I'm happy to do so. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ashwin147, I noticed you haven't edited the article since the 2nd. Will you have time in the next week (before the 13th) to address the remaining source issues, and any others that may come up? —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey! Been a busy couple of weeks. I see light at the end of the tunnel now. Can we extend the date to the 16th evening? That should give me the benefit of a weekend in case things don't wind up by the 13th. Ashwin147 (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	After making some tweaks, prose is good and passes GA standard.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There are a number of valid [excessive citations] tags - please address each of these, choosing the 1-3 most reliable and best-attributed sources. A statement of fact generally doesn't need more than one reliable source to back it up. The flagged instances have all be taken care of. But there are a few more with as many as 4 citations. In the process of resolving those as well. Ashwin147 (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Done. No more than 3 citations for any statement of fact. Ashwin147 (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Excellent, will re-assess this point. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Pass. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Extended content The Cabinet Secretariat document cites can have more detail added to them, such as their original date, location, and publisher (Government of India). Done.Ashwin147 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC) I'm unable to find much information about Nikhat Ekbal or Great Muslims of Undivided India, can you make a case for this source being reliable? Unable to find author information. But I find that the book is referenced in at least 5 other books available on Google Books. That should suffice regarding reliability? Ashwin147 (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC) I don't agree. Plenty of unreliable books are cited by other unreliable works. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Deleted. Replaced with a book by Janak Raj Rai. He seems knowledgeable enough about political science and law although he had a rather queer view on condoms and homosexuality. ;) Ashwin147 (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC) For basic biographical details, can we get an academic source, rather than Asian Age? It's only an additional source. And two sources in all. Can't we let this be? Ashwin147 (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC) If it's not needed to support the information given, it can be removed. As mentioned, if a source is high quality, only one is needed to back up a statement of fact. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) I am skeptical that COUNTERVIEW.org is reliable. Can you make a case for this? You're right. I have deleted that reference. Ashwin147 (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Cite #20, the Ghcba, doesn't appear to work. Should be repaired or removed. Removed. The other two citations suffice. Ashwin147 (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Cite #23, the loksabhaph bioprofile, is a dead link. Should be improved or removed. Replaced with the current url. Ashwin147 (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Is there not a better source for the St Catherine's college information? Unable to find one. The other citation also mentions him having done a tripos from St Catherine's. Should I replace the prospectus with the profile? No, the St Catherine's source will do, since it's directly from the college, I just wish it included more detail. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) I'm skeptical about the reliability of Star of Mysore, can you make a case for its reliability, especially for the specific article used? Star of Mysore is a newspaper in print since 1978. In any case, there's one more citation for that sentence and the two sources broadly agree on the point being made. Ashwin147 (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC) I cannot access the Sekhawat book, but I am concerned about the neutrality of the information given in Wikipedia's voice. Even the Star of Mysore is just reporting on one guy's opinion (Bhyrappa) who does not appear to be a subject matter expert. I would remove the sentence and its two citations altogether. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Disagree. Sekhawat, Bhyrappa, Khurshid. That's three citations. I could also see another article online where Kuldip Nayyar says the same thing. Khurshid and Nayyar may not be academicians but as people with long careers in politics, it wouldn't be fair to dismiss them. Also, the sentence in the article says he's been accused of it. Not presented as a fact of him having done it. Ashwin147 (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC) We can continue to discuss this in the neutrality section. I'm aware that this is a hot-button issue. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Cite #57 (Britannica) is not ideal as a tertiary source, replace by a secondary source if possible. Checking to see if the other three citations will do. If so, will drop this entirely. Ashwin147 (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Yes, if the information is cited in reliable secondary sources elsewhere, the simplest solution is to just delete the tertiary source. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Deleted. Ashwin147 (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Cite #71 (Observer Research Foundation) - seems to be largely corporate-funded think tank. Can it be trusted on corporate money in politics? The folks at MacArthur Foundation think the ORF is credible and nonpartisan. I've just added another paper by Gowda and Sreedharan that says pretty much the same thing that ORF does. Let's keep both? Ashwin147 (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Cite #72 (briefcase politics) is an opinion piece, not the best for a citation of fact. Replace with a better source if you can. Can't find one. Besides, the three sources cited are broadly in agreement. Ashwin147 (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Cites #74 and #76 (Rubinoff) appear to be identical, combine. I don't know what to do. The expand citations/citation bot used to do the trick but it has not worked for me for a long while now. Suggestions?Ashwin147 (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC) In visual editor, just delete one citation, highlight the other, and copy and paste it where the deleted one used to be. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Will do. Leaving all the technical fixes for the weekend. Ashwin147 (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC) I'm stuck on this issue of combining sources. All the other points have been sorted out. Ashwin147 (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Did the method I mentioned above not work for you? Have you used VisualEditor before? Happy to try and help if I can. :) —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Am still struggling with this. Ashwin147 (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC) What is causing the issue? What is going wrong when you try? —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC) Just went with your template for the other instances. Issue resolved. Ashwin147 (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC) Several of the Cabinet Secretariat document cites also appear to be identical, double-check and combine. Done. Ashwin147 (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC) Cite #90 (Naidu) is an opinion piece, should be replaced by an academic source. A fact stated in an opinion piece as opposed to an opinion being passed off as a fact is unacceptable? As for the statement that Pathak was elected in 1969 with the support of the Congress Party, I could add this citation. Ashwin147 (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC) If nothing else is available, a fact stated in an opinion article is acceptable, but it can be more difficult to distinguish opinion and fact in an op-ed, as well as possible lower or different standards for fact-checking by the institution publishing it. If the NYTimes source is sufficient, you could just delete Naidu. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC) The NYTimes link is about Pathak having won as a candidate of the Congress in 1969. I'll add that as an additional citation since this isn't clearly mentioned in the existing citations. Ashwin147 (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC) What is Cite #97, exactly? What is your case for it being reliable? (Charan Lal Sahu vs Shri Fakruddin Ali Ahmed & Ors) It is a database of case laws available, for the most part, for free to the public. In this case, it has the judgement in full. Why is it unreliable? Ashwin147 (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC) That seems fine - not saying that it is unreliable, just wanted to learn more about it and hear your opinion, since I couldn't discover much. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Cite #98, Bar & Bench, appears to be a blog or similar. Can you make a case for it being reliable? The site calls itself India's "premier online portal for Indian legal news". Adjectives aside, the column is based on an interview with Sahu. Again, why does it appear to be unreliable? Ashwin147 (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Self description on a website is not meaningful and self-reported information in an interview has the potential for bias and lack of independent perspective. The fact that it is used to cite seems fairly non-controversial, so the Kanoon source is probably plenty here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Deleted. Ashwin147 (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Ok, stopping here at the first 100 (of 228 cites!). There are significant source issues, plenty of work to be done here. Many citations would be improved by page numbers, or at least chapter titles - Coomi Kapoor's book on The Emergency is 400 pages long and cited generically along with three other sources. The Google Books version does not show the page numbers. What is to be done? Ashwin147 (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC) If you can get a print source from a library to check it, that would be ideal. If not, a chapter title would help the reader locate the information within the book. Done for Coomi. Changed a few more. As for the others, I have no more options. Ashwin147 (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC) Cite 104 (Kapoor) is an opinion piece and not the best for citing straight facts. Deleted. Besides, there are three other sources there. Ashwin147 (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Can you make a case for Downtoearth.org.in being a reliable source? I can't find anything relevant at WP:RSN. Down to Earth "is a fortnightly magazine focused on politics of environment and development, published by the Centre for Science and Environment." Ashwin147 (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Deleted to avoid a citation overkill. There are three other sources. Ashwin147 (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC) I don't know much about News18 - can you make a case for it being a reliable source? I can't find anything relevant at WP:RSN beyond this, which isn't very helpful. The channel is part of the Network18 Group owned by Reliance Industries. The point being made in that citation is also mentioned here. Have deleted the reference by Prime Minister Modi because that is likely non-neutral. Ashwin147 (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Can you make a case for The Goan Everyday being a reliable source? I can't find anything relevant at WP:RSN either. Deleted it and replaced with this citation from DNA India newspaper. Ashwin147 (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC) I don't know much about MoneyControl - can you make a case for it being a reliable source? Also a part of the Network18 Group. Ashwin147 (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC) I can't find much information on Children: Voyage into Problem Space, whether about the author or the publisher. Can you make a case for it being reliable? True. The Google Books link is confusing. Hence deleted it and replaced with an article from JSTOR. The point was about abolishing bonded labour by ordinance which is also mentioned here. Ashwin147 (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC) NCERT seems tricky as a source - it's tertiary, it's a children's textbook, and it's produced by the government of India itself, making it non-neutral for the kind of information it's used to support. Deleted. Reworked the citations. Ashwin147 (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC) I'm unable to find out much about the Centre for Constitutional Research and Development; can you make a case for it being reliable? Here's their bio. Seems legit. Ashwin147 (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC) I'm unconvinced, it's just a blog. I would want to see academics citing their work, or major newspapers describing them as well-respected, things like that. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Deleted and replaced with a source published by Parliament. Ashwin147 (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC) Cite #151 (MSN) appears to be a dead link - please replace or remove. Removed. Ashwin147 (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Cite #152 appears to be satire/humor and is probably not general enough to support a broad statement of fact. Deleted. Ashwin147 (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Cite #155 - Sunday Guardian Live - appears to be a deadlink. Please replace or remove. Removed. Ashwin147 (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Cite #156 - can you make a case for Open being a reliable source? There appear to have been issues with journalistic independence in the past. I doubt that can be said of the two articles cited here. One is a verbatim reproduction of Mrs. Gandhi's speech. The other was to say how Ahmed's image was dented because of the Abu Abraham cartoon. Ashwin147 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Cite #165 appears to be an unpublished dissertation or thesis, which is discouraged per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Deleted. Ashwin147 (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Cites #170 and 172 (presidential retreats) appear to be identical and should be combined. Done. Ashwin147 (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC) Cites #173 and 174 (Sportsmen and sports-lovers) are identical and should be combined. Done. Ashwin147 (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC) The Newspapers.com citations from #180-200, approximately, are generally missing article titles and other information (such as that they are from the UPI agency). Some of them (such as Manitowoc) also seem to have very little actual information not already contained in other sources. Please remove redundant cites. Redundant cites removed. In none of the cases do we have more than 2 newspaper citations. The details shown are as per citation toolbar when the links from the newspaper.com archive are entered in it under the cite news option. Can we leave it at that since the links go directly to the news article on the page mentioned? Ashwin147 (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC) I'm not sure what you mean by your comment here, can you clarify? —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) The information currently there is what appears when the relevant newspapers.com url is entered in the citation toolbar under the 'cite news' option at the time of writing the article. It is auto-generated to show the name of the newspaper, the page number and the date of publication. And on clicking the link, it takes the reader directly to the news item on the page. To type out individual headlines and stuff that is not captured by the toolbar is going to be cumbersome and serves little purpose as the source and all other details are already made available to the reader. Ashwin147 (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Can you make a case for Architexturez being a reliable source? This is their profile. Appears legitimate. Ashwin147 (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC) That doesn't suggest anything about reliability, it just says that they have existed since 1999 and links to other sites. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) It says "they documents processes, critical texts and nomothetic cases representing conditions obtained in South Asia. Documents are distributed online without profit, for research and educational purposes under fair use provisions of the Berne Convention." The article is by Ram Rahman and the site generally seems to have an excellent coverage of Delhi's architecture. Why does it appear to be not reliable? Ashwin147 (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC) After a heroic effort by the nominator, pass on source review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	None found - pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig, hold for manual spot check. After prose tweaks, nothing found. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Not as comprehensive as it would need to be for FA (some of his time in Assam government could be better covered), but at a generally appropriate level of detail and goes more in-depth where appropriate. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass, no issues with overdetail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I will be scrutinizing this article closely, covering as it does one of India's most controversial periods. For now, my first concern is about the accusations of votebanking in the 1950s. I cannot verify the Sekhawat source, and the Star of Mysore piece is just an interview with a non-historian who states their own opinion. The Khurshid source only mentions Ahmed in passing and says that the connection "was put down as a long-term result of", implying this isn't the author's view but the view of others. For this kind of controversial accusation, I'd want peer-reviewed pieces in academic journals, or well-reviewed books by well-known historians, not a politician. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC) Shekhawat's credentials should meet the criteria? I agree Bhyrappa may not be the best source and am willing to take that out but what about Kuldip Nayyar or this book by Jagmohan? To say that something is a fact only when academicians have passed verdict on it might not be fair. Again, Source#48 says the same thing. That's Nayyar, Khurshid, Jagmohan and two academicians - Sekhawat and Ghosh. Ashwin147 (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC) It would be ideal if I (and other readers) could verify Sekhawat, but I will AGF that the offline source is as stated. I would remove the Bhyrappa source altogether and go with Nayyar and Sekhawat as the two sources here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC) Bhyrappa out, Nayyar in. Done. Ashwin147 (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC) After tweaks, pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, GODL-India looks good for all relevant images.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Why are there two citations to Youtube videos for a non-controversial image caption (Bulgaria)? Because my instincts are to always cite/source things. ;-) One's a YT video from AP and the other is British Pathe. I was curious as to who these people are and the photo caption was rather bland. Ashwin147 (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC) I don't think the citations are needed for this kind of very non-controversial information. As long as the information is verifiable (and it evidently is), we're good. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Removed by me, pass. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.