Talk:Narada sting operation/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 23:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Opening statement

Disclaimers: I am not knowledgeable in Indian politics or its dialect in English. I understand the author is on an indefinite "semi-wikibreak," and will therefore be keeping this review On Hold until the nominator or another interested party responds to my comments..

In every review I conduct, make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine.. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

References and prose

This is the comment that I shall leave standing for the time being: This article has an abundance of citations (81 at time of writing), but a comparatively negligible amount of prose for it to support. What has been constructed is a skeleton with no muscles. Expand the article, and I will review that. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done Most of the remaining citations are newspaper reports of the type (So and so was hauled up by so and so investigation bureau and was questioned for so and so hours regarding so and so topic, we speculate so and so will also be hauled up later.), which are not really worth adding to the article. The citations however, are needed to prove that so and so bureau did probe the matter. Additionally, later copyedits have reduced the number of citations to 61. — fr ⁺ 15:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Why is Matthew Samuel being referred to by his first name? WP:SURNAME. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done — fr ⁺ 03:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Background

Could you move the picture of Matthew Samuel up to this section? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done — fr ⁺ 03:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Mention what year Operation West End took place in.

 Done — fr ⁺ 04:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Operation

• Footnote a is not supported by a citation.

I didn't find any specific article explicitly mentioning it. Maybe Winged Blades of Godric can find it. — fr ⁺ 13:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Tells me to insert the cites, right at the moment of writing. Remove that, please. ∯WBG^converse 11:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done — fr ⁺ 10:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• IPS officer What's the IPS?

Linked — fr ⁺ 13:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've substantially edited paragraph three to streamline it and delete duplicate links and restated information.

Okay — fr ⁺ 13:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Release

• A certain part What part. This has no teeth without specifics.

 Doing... — fr ⁺ 13:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I searched, but couldn't find anything more specific than this report. — fr ⁺ 06:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• a nearly two-year lag. Say when.

Vami IV, It is mentioned in details in other sections.... If you insist I'll certainly flesh it out. — fr ⁺ 13:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done — fr ⁺ 06:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Fallout and investigations

• Whilst the state objected to the handling of the probe to CBI, a bench of the Court, presided by Chief Justice Nishita Mhatre subsequently held that whilst the motives of Samuel and the legality of his actions might be debatable, that does not undermine the findings of the sting, in any manner and an investigation by an impartial agency shall be proceeded with. Looooong.

 Done — fr ⁺ 06:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• 3 lakh INR Could you link "lakh" and "Indian rupees" here?

 Done — fr ⁺ 06:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

GA progress

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Umm......As much as I had a responsibility to check the talk-pages, what caused you to not ping me, despite mine being mentioned as a co-nom?
• A good samaritan had merged cites, thus reducing the number of cites to 61.
• At any case, your comment does not make much sense to me and am hearing such stuff for the first time. Pretty much every significant detail has been covered.∯WBG^converse 20:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• At any case, I will indulge in a copy-edit session over the course of morrow.Pinging Vami IV.∯WBG^converse 20:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• Vami IV, it would have been good if you had pinged us. I will be certainly be ready to answer your queries unless RL intervenes. — fr ⁺ 15:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Reply to both: I had assumed Godric would see the changes to the article talk page in his watchlist and that FR30799386 would come back to this in at least several weeks' time. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)