This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
How can I improve the page (The quality of the page so that it could feature as FA). Feedback needed. Also, can we use the images from the web in the Wikipedia by acknowledging the publisher of the document in which it appears. I tried to use one of the images by uploading it in Wikipedia, but I am asked to drop an email for confirming the originality of the image. Hence, it is bounded to be deleted very soon [As per Wikipedia's rules]. What needs to be done in such a case? Suggestions Awaited. theTigerKing 17:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Vaibhav Gupta, 4th June, 2012
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
The page is not getting diaplayed in the search listings/results of any search engine. How to deal with it? theTigerKing 21:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
It has been more than ten days now since this article was created. I am skeptical why the web crawlers are not able to show it in search results.theTigerKing 15:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Having had a quick look at the article, you might want to work on:
All the best, France3470 (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Hi All,
I am finding check-link errors while using Checklinks tools. I need to know how to solve them. I want to submit the article for FA ASAP.
Link No4->Changes sub-domain and changes path-Highlighted in Green
Link No96->Soft 404-Highlighted in Red-
Link No95->Changes domain and redirect to-Highlighted in Green /
Link No120->Soft 404-Highlighted in Red
Link No127->Changes sub-domain and changes path-Highlighted in Green
Thanks in Advance,Regards, theTigerKing 06:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
theTigerKing 10:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
You should just edit the article in the normal way, changing the URL'S Mdann52 (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I see this currently has both a nomination at WP:GAN and a nomination at WP:FAC template here, though no actual listing at FAC yet that I can find. I just reopened the peer review as there had been very few comments.
Please note that if this is listed at FAC, it cannot also be listed at GAN and PR (as the FAC rules do not allow it). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I had submitted a request for copyright edit request. How do we get to know whether the request has been serviced or not? RegardstheTigerKing (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I had made a copyedit for this article in the month of June (WP:COPYEDITORS). I regret for the typos (I had mentioned copyright but I meant copyedit)
1) How do we get to know whether the request has been serviced or not?
2) Also, how long does it take it takes to get the request serviced?
3) Do I need to ask each member personally to help edit the article? Or, is that the only people with knowledge in this topic can provide me inputs?(This article is about a law pending before the parliament of India)
4) This page is not appearing in the search listings of any of the browsers. I was given the opinions previously that indexing of the article takes time. It has been more than 20 days now since the article was last created. Is there something that needs to be done on my part? Why it is happening so?
Thanks & Regards,
theTigerKing 16:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here) --theTigerKing 14:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I want to present a few facts.
1) The article The Lokpal Bill, 2011 is abut a bill pending before the parliament of India by the same name. This bill has been created by the Parliament of India and is currently pending before the upper house of the Parliament (The Rajya Sabha).
2) The article Jan Lokpal bill has been drafted by a civil society group named India Against Corruption. It is a just a draft anti-corruption bill which the group wanted it to be passed by the Parliament of India. The demand was out-rightly rejected to by the Parliament of India.
3) The bill once signed into a law by the President of India, would have contents which cannot be included into the unofficial versions of the bill ( In this case, The Jan Lokpal Bill). In such a case, the contents in the Jan Lokpal Bill article would have no bearing on the law already created in India. Hence, there would be no more edits possible in the article Jan Lokpal Bill.
4) The Jan Lokpal Bill was one of the many bills considered to by the recognized bodies and institutions set up under the Constitution of India (The parliament of India, The Parliamentary Standing Committee).
5) The article Jan Lokpal Bill is highly biased in favour of the unofficial version of the bill. It contains references to the activities performed by the organisation India Against Corruption to self-promote their versions of the bill (like conducting referendums, surveys etc.). They surely can't be mentioned in the official versions of the bill(anti-corruption) as these activities are conducted by self-promoted and unofficial groups whose views can't be subscribed to by the Government of India. Whereas the article The Lokpal Bill, 2011 has been written keeping in mind the official versions of the bill. Even the contents of the Jan Lokpal Bill have been written in a style which promotes the unofficial version (The Jan Lokpal Bill).
6) The article does not contain references and/or contents of the other unofficial anti-corruption bills. The article (The Lokpal Bill, 2011) has been written keeping in mind their very presence in the background. The drafts have been attached to in the extra reading section of the article.
7) The other drafts (non-official versions), processes (widespread public protests) and the people (Civil society groups not only the India Against Corruption) find their space in this article as they form a background to this bill.
8) The contents of the bill passed by the Lok Sabha (the lower house of the Parliament) and that referred to by the Select Committee of the Rajya Sabha for consideration are different not only from each other but also from the unofficial version of the bill, the Jan Lokpal Bill. Even, through the official documents presented to before the house of the Parliament of India by the government of India, the final version of the bill is surely going to be different from the Draft Jan Lokpal Bill.
9) This article, The Lokpal Bill 2011, contains a brief history of all the lokpal bill, the events circumscribing the drafting of this bill, a brief description of the official draft of the bill, the journey of the bill through both the houses of the Parliament, the views of the prominent industrialists of the country on the lokpal bill, 2011 and the contents of the bill (in brief) as passed by the Lok Sabha and that taken for consideration by a committee of the Rajya Sabha. The contents of the bill as passed by the Lok Sabha has been described in brief as it is very likely that the bill would need to passed again in the Lok Sabha considering the events that transpired in the Rajya Sabha. The article does full justice with the official versions of bills. And provides references to all the anti-corruption bills (one of the being The Jan Lokpal Bill) considered to by the official bodies of India and known to the people of India and provides them as documents for extra study in a separate section
Before writing this article, I was aware of the very existence of the article, The Jan Lokpal Bill. I decided to write this article after taking into account all possible aspects/scenarios and the challenges the bill Jan Lokpal Bill could possess on the official law/bill article in Wikipedia.
I should also draw a point that the activities of unrecognized bodies (In this case the body is India Against Corruption and the activity being drafting a bill Jan Lokpal Bill), can in any way serve as a substitute to the democratic and constitutional bodies and the activities they are bounded to perform under the constitution of India in a parliamentary democracy named India. This article is an improvement to the Jan Lokpal Bill and there exists similarities between the two pages because of the reasons mentioned in the below comment. The neutrality of the article Jan Lokpal Bill on it's talk page is inconclusive with no plausible reasons provided for in its talk page. Also, there is no point in expanding that article or contributing to its talk page, as they refer to two separate entities sharing a portion of a common history. However, the existence of two separate and mutually exclusive articles is justified, though they may be referring to some common content. Also, there is no point in referring to the portions of the Jan Lokpal Bill as they have been written in a biased manner.
Hence, I believe there should not be any figment of imagination of considering to delete this article at first place. Once the bill is passed by both the houses of the parliament of India and is signed by the President of India, a brief description and the contents of the law would find a space in this article to help wiki-readers help understand the bill better. The contents of this article would be expanded in the near future depending upon on the events that unfold in the floor of the Parliament of India. The contents of this article are not guided by unofficial organizations (India Against Corruption) but by the organizations responsible for carrying out the task of law making (The parliament of India and the Government of India).
Regards, theTigerKing 14:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here) --theTigerKing 15:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, In this comment, I would be presenting the reasons why there are similarities between the articles The Lokpal Bill, 2011 and the Jan Lokpal Bill.
1) The articles contain the word Lokpal in their titles.
2) A few of the events mentioned in both these articles are pointing to the same sources or situations.
3) The articles contain some of the references which are common to both of them. All of these sources are websites of either newspapers or the electronic media. This has happened because they are pointing to the same events. Even the texts from these sources have been referred to in both these articles by acknowledging the references in citations. It in no way duplicates the article Jan Lokpal Bill.
4) The very existence of both these articles is justified as they point to two different and unrelated entities.
I have requested a copy-edit for this article (The Lokpal Bill, 2011) as well, to help in drafting this article like other laws or official bills, which exist in the Wikipedia.
I would urge the administrators to have a look at both of my comments. I would appreciate their viewpoints. I would urge them to provide me the reasons which remain unexplained, if any. I would try to provide valid justifications before them.
Regards, theTigerKing 15:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TheSpecialUser (talk · contribs) 19:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll be writing a review shortly. Thanks! →TSU tp* 19:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I m holding this for 1 week. If User:Qwyrxian believes that it should be re-directed or merged then please do propose it on the article and if wants it to be deleted then go for AfD. After the span of 1 week, I'll start the review and also this is very very (extremely) less likely to be merged or redirected because this totally differs from Jan version. This is a different proposal formulated by different people and there is no reason to merge according to me. →TSU tp* 14:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Lets start slow. I'll raise minor concerns first and then will move to bigger.
Response for GA Review by theTigerKing 19:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC) →TSU tp* 05:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I never had a good look at the article but now as I have done it, this is a quick fail. Here are few reasons for it:
Sorry, but have to fail it for now →TSU tp* 15:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I had a look again. Neutrality will still be my main reason to quick fail it. This issue can be fixed in 1 month then could be re-nominated. The source provided to the statement in the lead is a primary source. Also, if it were nor a PS, then also one should not include such statement in the lead at all. WP:LEAD should summarize the whole article and should be neutral and should be in own words.
When you are writing an article about a bill, it should not be compared like it has been done in "Eight and Ninth Draft Meets". This is clearly a copyvio of the source. The source provided says that it is from Forbes and it is not infact. It is not even a WP:RS as that page is edited by editors like us. It is WP:OR.
Section headers like: Journey through The Lok Sabha looks as if we are reading a book related to the topic not an encyclopedia.
Corruption is an emotional issue in India, where at least 12 whistle-blowers were killed and 40 assaulted after seeking information under a new Right to Information Act aimed at exposing local graft, according to data compiled by Bloomberg L.P. from January 2010 through mid-October 2011. - focus failed
Lead should not introduce new topics and should contain some details of every content-section in the article. Sorry, but it has failed now. I'd like advise that seek help from someone who is active in GAs and then go for a nom after 2-3 weeks after addressing the issues. You can even ask me if you want me to make this article better (I have 2 GAs and 3 are just about to get GA status). →TSU tp* 03:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
At the current stage the article has grown too long and focuses more on the historical background and context rather than the legal provisions which have been incorporated in the Bill passed by the LS and RS. I propose to split the article and move most of the content to a new article which can be titled like Historical background to the Lokpal Bill or History of Lokpal Bill. Amartyabag TALK2ME 09:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
tell me add of lokayuktas in new dehi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohd azhar khan (talk • contribs) 10:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)