Talk:Indian National Congress/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 13:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While there has been significant work put into this article, as it stands the article does not yet meet the Good Article criteria. Some problems and suggestions for improvement:

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

There are a few areas where the prose could be tightened. For example the second paragraph of the lead begins with three sentences that all start with "Congress". The third paragraph of the lead goes until 2014, but the fourth jumps back to 2004. Overall however, the prose is of a decent quality.

Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 16:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

This article currently does not meet WP:LEAD. The lead should be a summary of the rest of the article. However, it appears to have been written by itself without much reference to the rest of the article. It contains references only used there, which is a common indication that the text is not based on the article. Three of the four paragraphs are mostly or completely focused on History, while other sections such as Current structure and composition miss out.

The 1st - What INC is, 2nd- about it's contemporary situation incliding past notable PMs from the party, 3rd and 4th - election performance, 5th - Its policies and party structure. Please let me know if this sequence is fine.

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

Some citations are incomplete or missing. The shortrefs "Singh, pp. 41–42", "Ghose 1993", and "Kopstein 2005" do not point to a longer citation. One reference, "Chandra 2007b", is missing completely. (Note if information including references is copied from other pages, this should be made clear in the edit summary.) Some sources include publishers in their titles eg. "Rent relief unlikely for Congress's Delhi properties | India News – Times of India", ""Political Parties - NCERT".

Fixed Removed those sources.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 16:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding quotes, if using citation templates they can be included in those citations, rather than listed in separate footnotes.

Not getting. Can you please highlight what section of article having this issue ?

2b) all inline 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;

There are a few Britannica citations which might be replaced, however at a quick look through there are no glaring issues here.

Fixed Removed. Also that line do not require a ref.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 16:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2c) it contains no original research

There is a lot of uncited information in this article. In addition to the outstanding cn tag, the General election results, Legislative assembly results, Presence in states and UTs, List of prime ministers, and List of current chief ministers are completely unsourced. Several areas of Political positions are unsourced, and there are a few scattered unsourced areas in other areas. (Note that I have not done a deep check into whether text matches existing sources, only checked for their presence.)

Added section filled with sources. Let me know if it's okay.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 16:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2d) it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

Earwig shows a couple of large areas of overlap with the Britannica article on the topic, where multiple sentences appear roughly the same. I note there are some other copyright issues in the article history, so this may be an area worth checking.

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

Compared to the few FA political party articles, and to a quick spotcheck of GA articles, this article appears to broadly cover relevant aspects. However, many sections are limited to only tables without any textual information. Information for example about General election results and Legislative assembly results should not be restricted to the History section.

Added--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 16:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

While the overall article length is within guidelines, more than half of the article text falls within the History section. This feels decidedly disproportionate, especially as the topic is already split off into a main article (albeit poorly developed compared to the section in this article). It would be advisable to merge the information on this article with the main article, and provide a more concise summary.

Fixed check now --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 16:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4) it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

No issues are immediately obvious regarding neutrality.

5) it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

There is some back and forth in recent editing history, but this article is broadly stable at the moment.

6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

The designation of File:INC Logo.svg as "simple geometry" seems dubious, especially as the simpler File:Hand INC.svg is under Share Alike. File:INC Flag Official.jpg is tagged as own work, which seems unlikely given its similarities with the previous two. Hard to see how File:Cow and Calf INC.svg could be public domain. Other images not yet checked.

Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 16:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Media is on topic, although the use of the Liberalism and Freedom of Religion sidebars seems too weakly linked to meet WP:SIDEBAR.

Best regards, CMD (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chipmunkdavis:, quickfailing is out of my comprehension. I was expecting maybe a day or two to resolve concern raised by you.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 16:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your suggestions, in fact have started working on it. Cheers--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a quick fail exactly, I took the time to look through the article and all the criteria. However, the issues identified are significant and span multiple criteria, and will take awhile to fix, outside the scope of a GAN. I would encourage before nominating to take a few days off the article, so you can look at the article yourself with a relatively fresh eye to compare it to the GA criteria. Best, CMD (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: Thanks for responding. Just curious if you know any GA or FA political articles. I need to refer those in order to write this one.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 07:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@25 Cents FC: When looking into this article, I compared it to articles on this list. Keep in mind however that the present state of articles may not reflect their current status. For example, the current Bharatiya Janata Party article does not meet GA status, also having many unsourced sections. However, if you look at the version when it was promoted, here, it is in a much better shape, having for example a source for each row of its tables. CMD (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]