Portal:India/Selected article candidates/Archived nominations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a list of archived nominations for Selected Article Candidates for Portal:India.

Contents 1 Successful nominations 1.1 Lage Raho Munna Bhai 1.2 Nathu La 1.3 Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 1.4 West Bengal 1.5 Bengali language 1.6 History of Tamil Nadu 1.7 Chalukya dynasty 1.8 Culture of Thiruvananthapuram 1.9 History of Buddhism 1.10 Rudyard Kipling 1.11 Ramayana 1.12 Indian Standard Time 1.13 Red rain in Kerala 1.14 Crushing by elephant 1.15 Directive Principles in India 1.16 Adi Shankara 1.17 Thiruvananthapuram 1.18 Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur 1.19 Muhammad Ali Jinnah 1.20 Muhammad Iqbal 1.21 Mahabharata 1.22 Kochi 1.23 Hindi 1.24 South India 1.25 Sikhism 1.26 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake 1.27 Norman Borlaug 1.28 Ahmedabad 1.29 Indian cricket team 1.30 Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India 1.31 Satyajit Ray 1.32 Indian Institutes of Technology 1.33 K. R. Narayanan 1.34 K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra 1.35 Darjeeling 1.36 Fundamental Rights in India 1.37 Ladakh 2 Unsuccessful nominations 2.1 Indian Navy 2.2 Subhash Chandra Bose 2.3 Vinayak Damodar Savarkar 2.4 Mother Teresa 2.5 Buddhism 2.6 Taj Mahal 2.7 British Raj 2.8 Pramod Mahajan 2.9 Tamil Nadu

[edit] Successful nominations

[edit] Lage Raho Munna Bhai

The article has some Manual of Style problems, like too much use of bold characters and many red links. However, the main comments invited are on its comprehensiveness. The main contributor is Classicfilms (talk • contribs). The article is well referenced. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The article can do with a little more clean-up, but is good enough. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - The article had been on my watchlist since it was a baby. It certainly is mature enough to join the PISA queue.--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 12:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nathu La

This article is about the Nathula Pass. The article has been a GA since July 2006. Recently I have started working on it, and now feel that article is well-written comprehensive enough to become a selected article on the Portal. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support Absolutely fit for becoming a selected article in Portal:India. The article is comprehensive, yet the length is not intimidating. Reminds me of Indian Standard Time!. Great work. In fact, we can go for an FAC as well if some more improvements are done - like slight expansion of the lead. What do you think? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I'm having a déjà vu of having voted for this article earlier...--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 12:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Frankly speaking, even I find it a very strong reminder of IST article. Now looks like we are all normal :) — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • lol! :)--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 13:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indo-Pakistani War of 1965

This is another wel-written article that is not far from being an FA. It is well-written, extensively referenced, and quite balanced. Should be selected to Portal:India. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• I support. I'd be the first to do so. :-) Idleguy 05:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, a bit reluctantly, though. The article has some WP:MoS concerns (eg not perfect citation style, red links and need of more wikilinks) that can be worked upon. More importantly, sections like "The war", "Intelligence failures" needs even more citations.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] West Bengal

We missed this :) Became featured article, but forgot to make it PISA. I propose ultra speedy promotion. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speeeeeedy--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 17:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bengali language

Was waiting for it to become a FA, so that it can be speedily promoted. Article about one of the national languages of India, and thus very much India-related. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy promotion support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy the speedy promotion--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 18:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Even I have started feeling that we have become process wonks. These articles are so clearly India-related that one doesn't even need a candidature. BTW, please also consider looking into other SAC and SPC noms. This will automatically pass, but those articles/pictures actually need to be discussed/debated. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Tamil Nadu

A Speedy Promote candidate. Already FA and very much India-related. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy promote--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 13:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chalukya dynasty

Another speedy promotion candidate. Already an FA and very much India related. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support - per nom. - KNM ^Talk 19:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Promote--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 13:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Culture of Thiruvananthapuram

Well written article. Nominating for the selected article candidature. -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me...)} :-) 10:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comments :- It is a well organised and good article. Needs some improvements.

1. Try to add more references in the article.

2. The section Cuisine and Festivals needs to be further expanded. They can be split in to two, if possible, and the festival section should incorporate other cultural festivals also apart from the religious festivals. Eg; Surya Festival, Swathi Musical Festival at Navarathri nights, etc. . --Samaleks 14:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comments. I have embedded my comments in the article. Apart from them, I find the article very weak in NPOV with lot of flowery terms. Try to tone down the article's language. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Why did the editors stop improving the article. It sure has a potential. Just needs a good copyedit and a few references. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ambuj Saxena, I went thru some sections, as per your comments. Please find the reply below.

• Ayyipillai Asan (15th or 16th Century AD) : The century is uncertain. There is no much evidence about the life of this poet. Only his works are known.
• Swathi Thirunal in the realm of music has enriched even the cultural heritage of India.<!-- How were other poets able to contribute to cultural heritage of Kerala alone and not India? --> : The contributions of the other poets was to Malayalam language and literature, and thus confined to Kerala. Swati Thirunal's contribution was in to Carnatic music, and literature (Kirtanas in Carnatic Music).
• Kumaran Asan was the true representative of the cultural renaissance.<!-- How do we know that? --> : Internal link is added now for Kumaran Asan. The article reflects it.
• Same stands for Narayana Guru and Chattampi Swamikal
• <ref name="Mural Paintings"> {{cite web | publisher=National Informatics Centre | work=Arts and Culture in Trivandrum | url=http://trivandrum.nic.in/art.html | title=Mural Paintings in Trivandrum | accessdate=2006-09-30 }} </ref> <!-- Reference does not back the claims in the paragraph. Furthermore, it is from a non-neutral source. --> : The source is from one of the official sites of Trivandrum district, which is maintained by National Informatics Centre, which is definitely a neutral source. The page says " The Padhmanabha Swamy temple and the Koikkala temple at Attingal have several murals and paintings which are examples of 16th century Kerala paintings ", which reflects the claim in the paragraph.
• Sources added to the comments related to Raja Ravi Varma.

I will soon go thru the rest of the comments. Thanks a lot for pointing out the weak points... -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me...)} :-) 18:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Good progress. The article is moving in the right direction. However, the problem of references not backing the claims is still to be resolved. I have clarified my observations in the article text. More importantly, it is advised to use reliable sources only, and avoid self-published sources while passing value judgements. The government of Kerala will always say that Kerala is great and those associated with it were the best. Whenever such value judgement is included, it should be attributed to the source. For example, see Sachin Tendulkar and Lance Armstrong for examples on how to remain neutral while quoting value judgements. Once these problems are sorted out, I feel that the article would be worth being a SA on Indian portal. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• The article is progressing on the right track. Hoping that the few review comments remaining will also be addressed soon.--Samaleks 00:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• All the comments are incorporated. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me...)} :-) 00:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Hmmm....not quite there, but good progress. I would support its inclusion as selected article now, and at the same time ask the editors to keep working on the article (preparing it for the FAC). — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Suppport - I too support, as the points I pointed out were taken care. --Samaleks 19:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Buddhism

Already a featured article, and very much India-related. Need I say more. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, Obviously it should be selected. Shyam ^(T/C) 08:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rudyard Kipling

Already a featured article, I find its subject very much India-related, and thus a possible selected article of the portal. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, Article is India related. It ia an FA, so it qulaifies all the requirements. It should also be mentioned in India related featured articles on notice board. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ramayana

I found this article quite well written, and suitable to be selected as a selected article for Portal:India. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Support: Article is very good no doubt. But one image (Ram Sita standing while performing Rajyabhishek after returning from 14 years exile) in the introduction section (if it can be made available) would make article more attractive. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Standard Time

I found this article quite suitable for Portal:India, satisfying all the criteria for being a selected article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and Support. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 04:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - very relevant -- Lost^(talk) 09:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: Article is now GA, and hence should be automatically promoted.-- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 12:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red rain in Kerala

A well referenced article that already meets the Good article standards.

• Nominate and Support -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 15:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Should be promoted. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crushing by elephant

Fascinating article, India related. Is now on FAC. — Ravikiran 19:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The article may still be lacking info on influences in popular culture, etc. but I would say it would make it through to the portal's selection. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - This article was commented on by Jimbo as one of the most random entries on wikipedia.[1] -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 15:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - interesting read -- Lost^(talk) 09:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• It is now an FA and so eligible for automatic promotion. —Ravikiran 10:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Should this be included in the list of Indian FAs on WP:INB? And while we're talking about this, should Black pepper be added too?-- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 12:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'd say yes to both. Both of them refer to India quite heavily -- Lost^(talk) 12:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Directive Principles in India

A well-written, comprehensive, well-referenced article. Already GA. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 17:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Article satisfies all criteria for SAs in Portal:India. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Nice article. Can you reduce the size of Gandhiji's image. It is way too large. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 20:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support nice, succinct, referenced article. Already GA, and satisfies criteria for SAs in India portal.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - GA-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 11:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adi Shankara

Self nom It is an FA and has been peer-reviewed. ^Babub→Talk 14:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support—speedy promote FAs.-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 15:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support Of course. It is featured already.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thiruvananthapuram

I feel that the article on Thiruvananthapuram is quite organised and well-wriiten, thus satisfying the Selected article criteria. So I am submitting the article as a candidate for the selected article on Portal:India.

-- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me...)} :-) 17:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Unwilling Object. The article is of fine quality, but completely lacks inline references. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing to Wilful Support. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object Such a nicely written article, but it needs inline references! With some inline references and some tightening of the text, it will not only be a Selected article, but can start on the way to being a WP:FA -- Samir धर्म 06:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed to support per excellent job done by Rajith Mohan in adding inline references -- Samir धर्म 08:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Inline references added. -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me...)} :-) 06:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support Nice and informative article

-- Sathyalal Talk to Sathya 06:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Well written. Meets the criteria for the selected article. - --Samaleks 13:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support: improvements have taken place recently, and I am sure that more improvements shall continue. --Bhadani 15:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Looks good. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}16:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Good article which has the official demographies and very fine in details. I support this article being a selected article. - Talk to Santhosh Janardhanan

[edit] Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur

This article is about my alma mater, IIT Kharagpur. I have been working on it for quite some time now, and feel that it has now reached a level where I can recommend it as a Selected article on Portal:India. Parts of this article (prominently History and Education) have been taken from the IITs article, and they have been added to make this article stand on its own. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Looks good. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}14:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support- -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me...)} :-) 17:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support sure, looks good -- Samir धर्म 06:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Not because it is Ambuj's alma mater, but because the page deserves this status. --Bhadani 15:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad Ali Jinnah

This article is already a Featured Article, and hence represents Wikipedia best works. The only criterion left is whether it is India-related, which this article satisfies. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support Promote ASAP. Of course the article is related to India.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad Iqbal

This article is already a Featured Article, and hence represents Wikipedia best works. The only criterion left is whether it is India-related, which this article satisfies. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support Of course it is related to India, more specifically, history of India.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mahabharata

I found this article quite good and think it deserves to be a selected article on Portal:India. Most of the article deals with the actual story in Mahabharata, and hence doesn't specifically require references. Only by the end, is such a need present and whatever is required is referenced. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Support quite good in my opinion. Nobleeagle (Talk) 22:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Weak object - The article contains a few POV terms (eg: With its vast philosophical depth and sheer magnitude, a consummate embodiment of the ethos of not only India but of Hinduism, Besides being hailed as one of the greatest literary accomplishments of humanity) and does need a few more citations. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}06:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Update. I have removed what appeared like Original Research. All the search results I could find about the cabinet meeting rescheduling were copied from this Wikipeia article itself. I am having a look at the other {{fact}} tags. I couldn't get why "Epics that can be argued as being of similar length include the Tibetan Epic of King Gesar and the Kyrgyz Manas." would need citations, and if needed, what kind of citation is expected. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Support - The article has improved greatly. (Ambuj, I wasnt the one who tagged citation missing there.) -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}04:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Then who made this and this edit :-? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Those were made by me, of course. But I didnt tag that Tibetan Epic of King Gesar and the Kyrgyz Manas sentence, but the sentence before it, about Mahabharata being the third largest epic. I think when the sentence was made into a reference, some text got chopped off, and the {{fact}} template got misplaced. Right now the article looks a bit funny, with references asking for references. lol. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}

[edit] Kochi

The article has recently had a peer review, and is currently being prepared for FAC. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}08:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support. The article is FA class. — Ravikiran 13:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. FA class. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hindi

I nominate this article as a candidate for Selected Article on Portal:India. It is quite exhaustive and well referenced and I feel can be featured. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Nice one. Comprehensive. Stable. Not much, but adequate reference so far as an SA is concerned. --Dwaipayan (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Meets SA criterion. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 09:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nobleeagle (Talk) 09:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South India

Quite comprehensive. Good references. Was India Collaboration of the Week in April, 2006. Has undergone peer eview. This article should be an India Selected Article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A near-FA quality article. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 17:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well written and comprehensive article. But please do something about the overuse of images. — Ravikiran 19:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Easily meets the required criterion. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 19:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This article has been promoted to selected article on India portal.

[edit] Sikhism

I feel this article definitely meets the criterion for being an SA on Portal:India. It has well written sections, excellent images, good inline citations & provides extensive references. The article is currently having a peer review & soon may be an FAC. Thanks. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 03:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support. FA class article. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. No question.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Still lots of work to do, but has seen a quite dramatic turn around in the last 48 hours. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Good quality of information, and much better than before. Gsingh 23:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake

This article is about the earthquake that caused Tsunami in India. The article is already featured in Wikipedia and is definitely India related. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Give Automatic Promotion - All FA should be promoted to SA. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, that can be done. But if I start promoting FAs like Frog, Coca Cola, etc. then again problem will start and people will say that I am not following procedures (as they are clearly not India-related). I think in order to bypass this, we need to create a better way of handling them. I think that once FAs are nominated, if they are un-opposed for 2 days, they can be speedily promoted. What do you think? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. — Ravikiran 07:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ambuj gives a great idea here. However, IMO, in FAC, if some India-related article is not significantly opposed for 2 days, that should be promoted to India SA. Bye the way, support this article to be an India SA.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norman Borlaug

The quality of this article is not in doubt, because it is already a Featured Article. I think that this needs to be on the Selected Articles because of his contributions to the green revolution. If others think so, we can add this without much ado. — Ravikiran 08:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Although the person is not an Indian, his work is very much India related. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice. I feel ashamed I did not know about him!--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahmedabad

This article is currently undergoing a peer review & may soon be an FAC.The article has been improved a lot lately. It is well referenced & is definitely one of the better India-related articles. It meets the criterion for being a Portal:India selected article. Thanks. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 02:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Should be selected in Portal:India. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks Srikeit for nominating this article. I don't think I need to say that I am all for this article becoming a SA. There are still some issues with the article that can be read at PR. Otherwise the article is fine. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah. --Andy123 ^candy? 15:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian cricket team

A GA nominee, covers all areas in reasonable detail. Provides references. No disputed issues. Gizza^{Chat ©} 23:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Good detail & format. Is definitely one of the better India-related articles. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 04:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Srikeit and DaGizza. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• the article is a "Good Article" now.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week and there have been no objections, things are looking good. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, the article is in great shape. Should be promotrd as India SA ASAP.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India

A comprehensive article which includes all relevant info. Well referenced. Peer reviewed twice: 1 | 2. Already a good article, and this may be its last stepping stone before its FA nom.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 07:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• support. Comprehensive.--Dwaipayanc 14:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• A Major Concern - no doubt this is a good article and deserves to be an FA, what to say of SA. But there are some crucial concerns that I have which might force me to object during an FAC. It is a commendable effort, but the article has been written as if you were one of the framers of a constitution. I wish I had realized this during the PR, but I see it as a problem now. There are so many sub-sections and headers followed only by 2-3 sentences. Even if you follows a summary style, it is more advisable that you create whole length paragraphs - don't break it down right-by-right, duty-by-duty etc. Just make bold the right you're explaining in the sentence - don't separate into header or sub-section. Other people might oppose this based on WP:MOS. This is how I feel - I hope we can work out this point completely here so that the FAC is smooth. Rama's Arrow 21:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  I've tried to reduce the no. of headings, as well as the bold text. Please check it out now.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes its improved. However the article's at a point where it needs further reduction of headers, and a para-style prose writing, but at the same time, I obviously respect the need to separately identify each right, duty, etc. I strongly recommend that you create an infobox of sorts, identifying all the rights separately. But stuff like "significance," "inspiration," "meaning," should be compressed into one sub-section. The second half of the article is good, but I have to ask why you don't add fundamental duties to the comparison between rights and directives. People will ask how relevant are they to practical India and they should get an answer of their relevance. Cheers, Rama's Arrow 17:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I most strongly recommend that you study U.S. Bill of Rights. See how they use a prose-style organization of data. There is also a lot of data about background and formation of the doc, which I hope this article can address based on the details of how the Assembly wrote these elements into the constitution. There needs to be more information beyond just inspiration. I can understand that coming after two PRs, this is a bit heavy. I'll help you as much as possible. Rama's Arrow 17:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done some work. Please check it out. Also, I wanted to know if you wanted to have infoboxes for each right, or an all-encompassing infobox? Because if it's an overall infobox that you want, then there's nothing better than the contents box.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 13:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I'm sorry for the delay in replying. IMO, this article isn't there yet - I find the "comparison" section no good - 4 sentences repeating generalizations. Right now this article still reads like you are writing the constitution in different words and its not comprehensive. Lemme re-list what I feel should be done:

1. Combine Evalutions/Implementation/Comparison of FD, DP and FR into one section like "Critical analysis," which should also discuss practical issues.
2. Practical issues given the cynicism/criticism ordinary Indians bear for the government, you must tell the reader about how these provisions work/don't work in practical India. You should discuss the impact of things like corruption, mis-government etc. on the enforcement of these constitutional principles.
3. Infobox - what I meant is, all fundamental rights should be listed in a box instead of having sub-sections: the problem with your contents box comparison is that then you aren't writing in para-style. An infobox should list the rights, and then you should discuss FR as a set in para, summary style. These sections must be combined to discuss the FR as a "set" and not individually.
4. Para-Summary style - you must write sizeable paras. That issue has not been resolved.
5. Background - as a reader I would like some information on the political processes, dialogue, inspiration and issues that the Constituent Assembly dealt with in writing this. I don't get such information - its not enough to say that the Irish, U.S. and British constitutions inspired this. Rama's Arrow 18:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, please take a good look at the U.S. Bill of Rights. If you like, you should ask the opinion of some others once again so that we can have multiple opinions and definitive criticism before a prospective FAC. Rama's Arrow 18:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've done some more work. Please look into it. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 03:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply This is much improved. However, there are a few outstanding concerns:

1. Factuality/Verifiability I noticed that in "Freedom of Religion," it is asserted that becoz of this freedom, nobody is allowed to offend or hurt religious sentiments. Obviously this is flawed, because (1) no citation, (2) does the Freedom of Religion actually assert this? so how is this interpretation possible? (3) This opens up a discussion on how India balances "Freedom of Speech and Press" with "Religion." Will it be a violation of freedom of speech for someone to be punished for speaking derogatively of a religion or community? It is vital to check the other rights/DP/FD to make sure no such issues exist.
2. You need more citations - this is because of cases in which you interpret the slated rights/laws and talk about Supreme Court decisions and precedents.
3. Copyediting many grammatical, spelling errors.

Shreshth, you're doing great work in this. I'm gonna chip in myself and make some edits based on the points I've made, and ask you for your opinion. I think it'll be advisable for you to ask someone like Taxman, Dwaipayanc, Sundar or Ambuj.Saxena to have a look at this, so we can rest assured we're touching all the bases. I think we can push for FAC early this coming week. Rama's Arrow 04:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

For the purposes of being a selected article on Portal:India, I'm sure I can give Complete Support, even as the work necessary for a successful FAC is progressing. Rama's Arrow 04:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Satyajit Ray

Satyajit Ray is being nominated as the article has reached a more or less comprehensive stage. The section unfilmed needs some proper sourcing. Otherwise, the article seems fine. There are some red links, that can be worked upon. Please point out NPoV languages. There is no biographical article from the Indian film-world in the Portal:India/Selected articles. And who else other than Satyajit Ray deserves to be the first one? :).Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 12:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If some work can be done on Personal awards section to make it in tabular form, it will look a nice article. It requires an image which can be considered under either public domain or GFDL license. Shyam ^(T/C) 16:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see this. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 19:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Still it does not meet the criteria. Appericiable work is done but still need some more work to clean up. Shyam ^(T/C) 10:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you please point out specific portions that need great deal of work? --Dwaipayanc 06:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, still Literary adaptations section should be well written. It is not understood to me Filmography section also has main article which does look copy-pasted of the section to some extent. Article has all images which are for fair use. Article is mess of red links in many sections. Atleast providing an image, which may be considered as GFDL, PD or CC license, would be appericiable. Shyam ^(T/C) 09:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. We shall try to upgrade the literary adaptation section. The main article "Filmography of Satyajit Ray" includes his filmography as director, author, composer etc. (not complete yet!), while Satyajit Ray contains only the filmography as director ( including all filmographies will make the article unnecessarily long). Obviously the article Filmography of Satyajit Ray would partially seem like a copy-pasted section of Satyajit Ray, as the filmography as director is the same!

Regarding red links, yes there are some. I will try to make some of them blue. However, as it may not be possible to turn every red link to blue, we might have to consider de-linking some (like those on the awards section), if we conclude that retaining 3 or 4 red links is a major negative point in the way of becoming a Indian selected article. I shall look for a GFDL, PD or CC image. Thanks. --Dwaipayanc 13:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, some red links will do in the article, it should not be a big issue. But mess of red links does not suit for being a selected article for portal. After doing some work on some sections which really need some more work I will applaud your work. Thanks Shyam ^(T/C) 13:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Institutes of Technology

A greatly referenced article. A failed FA candidate. However, underwent extensive edits and peer review after that. Expected Featured Article Candidate very shortly. Should be here in the India Selected Article list before it becomes an FA!! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Modest Support. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yo Ambuj, what was that? Was the support modest? or were you modest? LoL.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I will leave the interpretation to you. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support - It is fairly close to FA standard and a good read. --Blacksun 20:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] K. R. Narayanan

A failed Featured Article candidate. However, has undergone a peer review since. Comtains extensine inline citations and references.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Satisfactorily good article. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra

A well-referenced A-class article. Very interesting as well. Has been there in the India-related A-class article list for a long time. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well documented and well referenced article. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darjeeling

The article has been improved in last few days. It follows the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities. Have a look and please help it become a selected article in Portal:India. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support - A fine and well written article. thunderboltz^(Deepu) 16:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamental Rights in India

A comprehensive, well-referenced article created from text culled out from Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 15:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well written, well referenced, and now includes "critical analysis" section. — goethean ॐ 15:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good enough to be a selected article. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ladakh

The article is currently undergoing a peer review and is well on its way to becoming a FAC. — Ravikiran 05:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Deserves to be selected on Portal:India. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support, it looks very good for a selected article -- Samir धर्म 06:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support It will be in FAC soon.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsuccessful nominations

[edit] Indian Navy

The article failed its FAC, but I find it good enough to be a selected article on the portal; i.e. the article is not perfect to be FA, but good enough for the portal. Comments? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object Umm...not yet I think. Copyedit needed. Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words to be followed properly (eg "India is expanding the indigenous ship building capabilities in a very big way"). Also, the references are not perfectly described.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have give the article another copyedit. I had seen that the references are not perfect, but they are present at most of the places they are required. Formatting problems like these shouldn't stop this article from being selected on the Portal. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subhash Chandra Bose

I found this article quite well-written and referenced enough to be able to get selected for Portal:India. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comments, I noticed some of the sections need to be worked out. There is need to create a section related to Indian National Army. "His most famous quote" should be a subsection of INA. "Disapperance and alleged death" section should be a lead section followed by subsection "Re-evaluation of Netaji". Shyam ^(T/C) 08:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe I have addressed your concerns. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comments The section "Political views" is not stable, neither is it written as a gist. The section undergoes edit-wars often. Also has some citation needed tags. Otherwise pretty good.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vinayak Damodar Savarkar

I found this article quite well-wriiten and satisfying the criteria to become a selected article on Portal:India. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment notes are based on just one reference. Should encompass more web/book references.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mother Teresa

I find the article well referenced, and quite fit to be a selected article on the Indian portal. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}14:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose the article is not exactly stable. The controversy section regulerly undergoes changes and was allegedly biased. It needs more work for stabilisation.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism

It is a former featured article that was removed because of its size (although the vote-margin was very narrow). I strongly feel that this can be included as a Selected Article on Portal:India as its quite comprehensive and well referenced. Although the article does not have inline references, I feel that its still featurable as the "overall" references are quite good. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Not exactly a nice-looking article. Comprehensive, but not as per manual of style. Also, 2 sections has "stub" notifications. "Notes" need formatting. References extensive but an article of this size would need some more inline citations. A little bit tidying up - and its a sure India SA. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Object:

• Extremely disorganised article. "Gautama - the Buddha" is at section 1, while "Buddhism after the Buddha" is at section 4. Why? Obviously because people kept adding sections without thought to how it fits in with the overall layout of the article. This is a good example of the disadvantages of the Wiki idea.
• "Present state of Buddhism" is still a stub and does no justice at all to the enormous influence that the philosophy has had outside its traditional domain - its influence on current Western thinkers, etc.
• The lead section should summarise the article, not define the term. — Ravikiran 08:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Weak Object If you look at the history of this article, you will see that the article is not stable. The article has been going back and forth between 50kb and 80 kb. Currently, the size is 85kb. In April, it was only 50kb. People are still trying to reach consensus as to appropriate presentation of different sects of Buddhism. Correspondingly, these sections are quite messy. Some sections are bloated and too detailed while other sections are underdeveloped and still in stub. We should wait until the article find POV statility. Vapour

[edit] Taj Mahal

I strongly feel that this article deserves to be a selected article in Portal:India. It is extremely comprehensive and even discussing the conspiracy theories. It is well referenced and quite stable also. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support. An excellent article, with very good reference. It should be an Indian SA. In fact, it should be worked upon for FAC. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Object. The history section is too short, while legends and kooky theories are given more importance. The tedious details of the design can be shorted or parcelled off into a separate article. The organization also needs to be worked on. Also, there is absolutely nothing on the incredible influence that it has wielded on the art and culture of India, its use as a symbol of love, etc. — Ravikiran 08:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Raj

I nominate this article as a candidate for selected article on Indian Portal. It is very comprehensive and is adequately referenced. Although inline citations are missing, I feel that overall citations more than compensate for them. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support. If this were a FAC, I'd oppose, but it is a fairly decent article as it is. Once again - the lead section should summarise the article not define the term. The extent of the Raj should ideally go into a separate section. Needs some copyediting, but is not a show-stopper. And 0h.. if the whole darn article is about "History", then why subsection it? — Ravikiran 10:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Great article, of course. But some concerns are there. No inline citations. A subsection has got this expand section tag. Copyediting needed. For example, no need to discuss the causes of 1857 rebellion at length. IMO, the article can wait a bit longer before becoming India SA.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pramod Mahajan

A self nom (I started the article the day he was shot and have worked extensively on it.) It is a fairly decent article and has stabilised now. But I am putting it up here more for feedback than because I expect it to succeed. — Ravikiran 06:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I have a few problems with the article. First of all, there are a lot of sentences that need to have sourcing. Many have allegations which should have proofs. The section on his brother's arrest is unnecessary. It can be compressed and merged to the "Death" section. Other than these, the article looks pretty decent. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tamil Nadu

More external links may be attached and the reference part may be made as that done in the Kerala article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saravan p (talk • contribs).

• Strongly Oppose. Too early for this article. Still needs a lot of improvement. The biggest problem with this article is the bias towards some sections like history and eminent personalities (Famous Tamilians) which are unusually long. I would even prefer the latter to be created as a separate article and get it removed from the page. "Tamil Nadu's population stood at 62,110,839 as of 00.00 hours of 1 March 2001."...This is hilarious. The article's inline referencing needs to be fixed. Many more issues leave me with no option but to strongly oppose this article. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made some improvements to the article myself(particularly referencing), but many more oppositions still left. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)