Talk:Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: MJL (talk · contribs) 23:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
You're missing a few full stops. Run through the whole thing and please add them as needed.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
See below.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig gave a false positive, but it's good. I would just be careful more and make sure you add quote marks when you are directly quoting something in the bill.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
The article is certainly on the shorter side. However, this seems to be because there really are only three aspects to the topic: the background, the bill's provision, and the criticism of it. There's no doubt that to me that this meets the broad in its coverage criteria of GA, but this might be a significant barrier if the article were to try to make it to Featured class.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
There's some minor language cleanup that needs to happen for this phrase: amidst chaos in the house over
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
You might consider using File:Hijra Indian entertainers (c. 1865).jpeg instead of File:Hijra and companions in Eastern Bengal.jpg since the latter is already found in two other places on English Wikipedia, but that's your call. You may also consider uploading the text of the bill to commons and link feature it like I did here.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Please fix the remaining issues, and you should be all set. 23:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

MOS issues[edit]

I'm just going to list them here. Feel free to just cross them out using <s></s> as you address them.

Law Ministry is capitalized but doesn't link to anything. If it is a proper noun, then please link to the primary topic, but otherwise I think that it probably needs to be lowercase per MOS:INSTITUTIONS.
The first instance where Rajya Sabha comes up should be linked (MOS:BTW), but it should be linked once in the lead per MOS:REPEATLINK. Same thing goes for the term President of India.
District Magistrate should be replaced with district magistrate. The following terms should be lowercase as well:
- District Screening Committee
- Opposition
- Expert Committee
- Standing Committee
Per WP:ELPOINTS, links should never be found in the articles prose. On 5 December 2019 it was signed into law by the President of India.
National Council for Transgender Persons can bolded if you want per MOS:BOLDSYN (I redirected it to the page). Strictly optional, though.

Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing[edit]

Had to close this per this. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]