Talk:Shiv Chopra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Shiv Chopra was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: September 27, 2006
Did You Know An entry from Shiv Chopra appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 27 August 2006.
Wikipedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Peer review Shiv Chopra has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

[edit] Is Shiv Chopra the real Shiv Chopra?

Maybe. Right now I am still in the process in contacting Shiv Chopra, so I agree with Samir removing the tag for now.. once I get confirmation, I will put it back. --Deenoe 20:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit to Lamb of God.. DEFINITLY not Shiv Chopra... --Deenoe 20:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfortunatly

Unfortunatly, I tried reaching Shiv Chopra, no answer. So I can't have the info on his backgrounds and whereabouts now... --Deenoe 01:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 27, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Mediocre. Few grammatical errors: "Chopra is aN East Indian Hindu," "He then workED at," "It's WAS only in 1969"
2. Factually accurate?: Tons of references. Great!
3. Broad in coverage?: This article needs major expansion. A) Many accusations are made and presented as fact (and they may be), but they need to be substantiated with evidence. Also, since this article is about Shiv Chopra, and not just suits against the Canadian government, everything needs to be tied back to him. Look at this paragraph:

This was one of two major cases of systemic racial discrimination in the Canadian public service. In 1992 and 1994, the National Research Council of Canada, a government scientific agency, was found by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to have systemically discriminated against Chander Grover, an expert in optics and photonics, on the basis of race, colour and national origin.

It is not tied to Shiv Chopra in any way. Tell us what that has to do with him. Additionally, it is generally considered bad to have a subheading with only on paragraph. If there is only one paragraph, it either needs to be expanded with more information, or merged into another relevant section.
4. Neutral point of view?: Some NPOV issues. The writers of the article clearly think that Shiv Chopra is hero. And he may be. But the facts should speak for themselves. Instead, there a few phrases that border on opinionated: "the Federal Court of Canada quashed " "They are recognized as the first whistleblowers in the Canadian public service" (This last statement may be true, but it needs some further explanation. Is this a formal reward? What is the award called? IN the US at least, whistleblower is a very informal term, like saying that someone got an the Annual blowhard award). Also "This was one of two major cases of systemic racial discrimination in the Canadian public service." (You have to show how this was proven to be true, and not just an accusation.)
5. Article stability? Extremely new article, and really needs a lot more work. So stability can't really be determined.
6. Images?: None. Which aren't required, but you may be able to use these: Image:Canada wordmark.png, Image:CNDNRC Sign Ottawa.jpg, Image:CP Grover.jpg

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Esprit15d 18:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestions are somewhat out there. We can't put the fair use images that you suggested into this article (please read WP:FUC). Quashed is a legal term, not a POV term. Whistleblower is not a "reward" or an "award", and, while it should be explained, to liken it to the "Annual Blowhard Award" is silly and bordering on rude. If there were two major public service racial discrimination cases in Canada (and one involved Shiv Chopra), the cases are linked by the fact that they were the only two major public service racial discrimination cases in Canada. -- Samir धर्म 02:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
First I just wanted to say that we are on the same team. Secondly, to sum up my critique, the article in it's current form is not a true biography. It's a light discussion on several pivotal cases in Canadian public service with some biographical remarks. You can do one of two things: (1) Flesh this article out completely (substantiating accusations, giving a history of the discrimination he faced or observed, providing details of the rebuttal given by Health Canada, reporting the media reaction, etc...) and then move it to an article titled something like Citations against Health Canada (you would know better what an appropriate title would be). You may also (2) turn this into a true biography with an early life section, career section (which of course will be dominated by the whistleblowing incident), a personal life section (marriages, kids, etc...) and a "after" section, which can be called "Selected events" or "After leaving Health Canada" or something along these lines. I was unable to find many whistleblower bios that were good or fac quality, but you might want to check out the articles W. Mark Felt (featured article) and Frank Serpico (not as good, but a good start) for good examples.--Esprit15d 13:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)