Wikipedia:Peer review/Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India/archive2

Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India

This is this articles second time on the peer review (see the1st time). All the concerns brought up during that review have since been solved, but I still don't feel that the article is ready for FA nomination. Please give some comments as to what can be done.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shresth91. You've done excellent work here! I don't know much about FAs, but I have the following suggestions to make:

{1} The intro has to be bigger - two big paras is ideal. Considering discussing the influences and "Gandhian values" that inspired all this, and prolly on how Govt. has succeeded/failed in maintaining/achieving these.

(2) I feel that the images are not positioned properly. The flag of India is way down to the bottom, while there is a pic of Gandhi in middle next to a small "inspirations" section which talks about "Gandhian values". I think you should move the flag on top, then insert the politics of India box, while put in pics of Gandhi, Rajendra Prasad and maybe Ambedkar in a section that discusses the influences and writing process. It just seems a little haphazard right now.

(3) There is a lone graph about education progress - I think you should prolly have 2 more graphics and more data about the results so far on other pledges made by the Govt. Maybe some more written stuff as well.

(4) This is very well-organized, but the contents bloc may be considered too large. Consider creating one "Fundamental Rights" section, in which you elaborate all the different rights, etc.

(5) there are some formatting errors, unspaced words, spelling mistakes.

You've done a fine job - my vote is locked in favor of its eventual FA nomination. Rama's Arrow 17:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to Rama's Arrow's comments

(1) The intro has been lengthened. Please take a look at it and tell me if anything better needs to be done.

(2) I feel the images have been added where they are relevant. For example, the Gandhi image is next to the Directive principles, which is the only part of it which has been inspired from his poicies.

(3) The graph is the only one I know of, so I've added this. I've asked User:Utcursch to help out he is the one who originally uploaded the img. There is already a lot of text with resprect to implementation of Directive Principles and many court cases have been cited with reference to safeguarding of rights.

(4) User:Nichalp said he would help out in reducing the amount of headings and bold text so I'm leaving that part of it to him.

(5) User:Sundar has agreed to copyedit the article, so I hope that he'll reduce the no. of those format errors. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Hi Shreshth91 -

(1) Remove "true" democracy - its POV, claiming India to be a true democracy. I don't think any country can make that claim. If you add "in theory" to distinguish from practical flaws, it will look bad. A good replacement is "World's Largest Democracy" (even better, eh?)

(2) The definition needs to be one stream in 1-2 sentences in the opening, something like: "Freedom and democracy in India are guaranteed through the Fundamental Rights and Duties of its citizens, and the Directive Principles that must guide the Government, in the Constitution of India."

(3) There need to be at least 2 major paras - (a) define the article something like done above, (b) describe what you mean by rights, (and especially duties and directive principles, for this part is not well understood or known to people) in a couple of sentences for each, and describe how they are influential/achieved/not achieved in practical life. The intro needs to summarize almost every point the article discusses.

These are my suggestions blended with FA guidelines. I'm sure the end result will be a damn good article. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 17:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Points (2) and (3) done. Removing "true" democracy would make it very understated - these three are what make India a democracy. Replacing with "world's largest democracy" makes no sense because it isn't because of the rights etc. that India is the largest democracy, it is because of the large area. So I've left that as it is till I come up with a better replacement.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• It's not clear from the lead what this article is about. Are these terms defined as they are used in the Indian constitution? That appears to be the case, but it isn't obvious from the lead. Tuf-Kat 20:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• • That's very vague. I don't understand what you mean. The Constitution does not have definitions for Fundamental Rights or for the Duties (see Wikisource). However, it does have some for Directive Principles and I've added that.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've lengthened the lead. Maybe it helps.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Deeptrivia's comments

I'll keep adding comments here as and when I find something to comment on.

To begin with:

• "Fundamental Rights are certain basic human rights which every citizen of India has the right to enjoy for a proper and harmonious development of their personality."

• Definition is circular.
• It's vague. "basic human rights" can mean different things for different people. Also, these rights are more than just basic human rights that every nation (even dictatorships) must confer on its citizens according to the UN charter.

Should be replaced with a more formal definition.

• I just went through this and found the wikipedia article doesn't cover many major points. A good article must be complete.

Response to Deeptrivia

• Since no formal definition of Fundamental Rights is given in the Constitution (see s:Constitution of India), therefore there is no "formal" definition as such. The definition that I have added is widely accepted. I can't understand how it is "circular".
• The external link that you have mentioned is a report by the law ministry giving recommendations as to the changes which, according to ministry, should be made in the Constitution, so it can hardly be added since most of the recommendations may not get passed by the Parliament.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering if it was a good idea to put that stuff in an expanded section on criticism/recommendations. The definition right now is fine. I was talking about the previous definition that said fundamental rights are "certain basic human rights which every citizen of India has the right to enjoy." So everything's fine with it now! deeptrivia (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent article. Very in-depth. I think the flag pic, and Gandhi's pic are fine where they are. Once the India Collaboration of the week sign is taken off, the pic of the flag from there (the mini, clickable version) can be placed somewhere in the header of the article.Fire 15:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Fresh comments

Hi Shreshth91 - IMHO, you should change this article's tone and format, which feels like it is a part of a constitutional document or legal paper. I know that since the matter is a part of the Constitution, it gives you precise limitations for the data you put in - but for an encyclopedia, I believe a different organization and style of writing is necessary.

Example 1: There is a sub-section "Amendments to Fundamental Rights". It is only 2 lines. I understand that there have been only 2 amendments, but readers would perhaps feel good if you included details of the political debate, circumstances and consequences ensuing the amendments. "Right to Property" is IMHO, an emerging clash 'coz with a free-market economy, it is increasingly hypocritical for the Government not to clearly protect individual property (China has the same issue). The "Comparison of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles" is another issue - it is a main section, and only 4 lines. This section should include analytical data, different perspectives, etc.

Example 2: Some just need compressing. You have two subsections for "Aims" and "Characteristics". Consider merging these types of subsections. The "Implementation" section is ideal in terms of size, but "Legal and administrative matters" and "Foreign policy" should be merged themselves or into somewhere in the section. This type of re-formatting is ideal.

(1) The contents box is too long - you should have 1 section for "Rights" - use bold headings below to list/discuss different rights, but not sub-sections. The box needs to be appropriate (FA criteria). (2) The length is 40kb - this is just right. Don't go above 45kb. (3) There are some imbedded spelling errors and grammar. Make sure you've got'em before you send to FA nomination.

I hope this helps. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 17:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)