Portal:India/Selected article candidates/Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India

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)