Template:Did you know nominations/T.S.R. Subramanian vs Union of India
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
T.S.R. Subramanian vs Union of India edit
Building of the Supreme Court of India.
- ... that as per T.S.R. Subramanian vs Union of India ruling of the Supreme Court (pictured), officers of the Indian Administrative Service, other All India Services and other civil servants are not bound to follow oral directions as they "undermine credibility"...? Source: "Venkatesan, J. (November 1, 2013). "Oral instructions undermine accountability: Supreme Court". The Hindu. New Delhi. ISSN 0971-751X. OCLC 13119119."
- ALT1:... that as per T.S.R. Subramanian vs Union of India ruling of the Supreme Court of India (pictured), Civil Services Board (CSB), headed by the Cabinet Secretary at national level, and chief secretaries at state level, are to be set up to recommend transfer/postings of the officers of the All India Services (IAS, IFoS and IPS)...? Source: "Venkatesan, J. (October 31, 2018). "In major reform, SC orders fixed tenure for bureaucrats". The Hindu. New Delhi. ISSN 0971-751X. OCLC 13119119."
- ALT2:... that the rulings of Supreme Court of India (pictured) in T.S.R. Subramanian vs Union of India were received mostly positively and were termed as a 'major reform'...? Source: "Balaji, R. (October 31, 2013). "Chance to say 'No, minister'". The Telegraph. New Delhi. OCLC 271717941."
- ALT3:...T.S.R. Subramanian vs Union of India, an Indian public interest writ petition filed before the Supreme Court (pictured) and decided in October 2013, is considered a landmark case in Indian legal history...? Source: Monalisa (October 31, 2013). "Supreme Court seeks to unshackle bureaucracy". Live Mint. New Delhi: HT Media Ltd.
- Comment: Comments/critique would be welcome.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 05:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: Comments/critique would be welcome.
Created by SshibumXZ (talk). Self-nominated at 05:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC).
@SshibumXZ: Congratulations on your first DYK nomination. The time is fine. However, excluding the information in the bullet points as they don't count towards character count, the article is only about 1,014 characters long but it can easily be changed into paragraphs. With the hooks, my preference is for the original however it is 294 characters, 94 characters too long so would you be able to find a way to reword it please? You don't need a QPQ as this is your first nomination. The image you have included with the hooks needs to be in the article in order for it to be used. When you have done all of these, please ping me and I will have another look. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- @The C of E:
Done, I have also added an extra alt. Also on a somewhat related note, why is a quid pro quo necessary for experienced nominators?
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 23:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)- @SshibumXZ: It's to help get DYKs reviewed in a relatively timely manner rather than just growing the list with few people reviewing them. I've found it interesting to review other entries here, myself.
···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Nihonjoe: oh, okay. Thank you for explaining.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 03:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)- @SshibumXZ: Thank you for your work on it. I like ALT4 however it needs an inline citation in the article, preferably in the lead. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- @The C of E: I would do that later, as I have an extremely shoddy internet connection right now. Also, are you sure that you’re one of Elizabeth II’s subjects, because as far as I know, the sovereign doesn’t have subjects anymore, they’ve been replaced by citizens, and the only subjects left reside in Ireland.
- @SshibumXZ: Thank you for your work on it. I like ALT4 however it needs an inline citation in the article, preferably in the lead. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Nihonjoe: oh, okay. Thank you for explaining.
- @SshibumXZ: It's to help get DYKs reviewed in a relatively timely manner rather than just growing the list with few people reviewing them. I've found it interesting to review other entries here, myself.
- @The C of E:
@The C of E: 
Done: I have added inline citations in the lede.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 00:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Good to go, though I would suggest changing "most important" to "a landmark" case. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- Done: I have replaced 'most important' with 'landmark'.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 06:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)- @The C of E: Coming to promote this, you seem to have approved ALT4, but that hook does not exist. Also, were you referring to using "landmark" in the hook rather than the article? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: Apologies, I had meant to say ALt3. I have amended it in line with my comments above. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- @The C of E: Coming to promote this, you seem to have approved ALT4, but that hook does not exist. Also, were you referring to using "landmark" in the hook rather than the article? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
