Wikipedia:Featured article review/Economy of India/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Nikkimaria 19:53, 16 July 2011 [1].

Economy of India edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Pamri, Kkm010, WP Business, WP Economics, WP India

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is a 2005 FA that hasn't been reviewed since 2006. Significant work is needed, including work on references, prose and images.

Several places where opinion and statistics are uncited. For example, the second paragraph of the Balance of payments section – there are others, this is just an example.
Bullet pointed lists are discouraged per MOS. There are several places where bullet points could easily be turned into prose.
Image captions can should be shortened in several cases, and refs removed wherever possible.
Twenty dead links (some marked and some not) and one dab link.
Mix of spellings (neighbor and neighbour, etc)
Improperly formatted references, web refs missing publishers and access dates. Books accessed through Google books should be formatted as books, not websites, and Google books should not be given as the publisher – they are simply making the information accessible. Books should have full information – publisher, ISBN, page numbers.
Unreliable/non-high quality sources:

#80 (Sify) – redirects to a nonexistent page.
#88 (Nationmaster) – Nationmaster is an unreliable aggregate site, they often use WP or other wikis for information
#94 (Indianchild) – using a site dedicated to child internet safety for statistics on oil and gas?
#122 (Swaminathan) – what is this?

Lots of 2005 data throughout the article – should be updated if possible. Dana boomer (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include MOS issues, references, and comprehensiveness. Dana boomer (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delist Agree with concerns cited by the nominator. Concerns not addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 03:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most concerns raised above have been addressed:

Citations have been added wherever required.
Bulleted lists have been replaced with prose.
All dead links have been fixed or removed.
Spellings have been made consistent.
References have been formatted.
High-quality secondary sources have been added; poor-quality sources have been replaced wherever possible.
Data has been updated to 2008-09 or 2009-10 figures wherever possible.

Please point out any specific concerns that remain to be addressed. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
- I've added a few more fact tags where I think references should be included.
- Income and consumption section, Why does "As of 2005, according to World Bank statistics, 75.6% of the population lives on less than $2 a day (PPP), while 41.6% of the population is living below the new international poverty line of $1.25 (PPP) per day.[136][137][138][139][140]" need five references?
- Still many web references missing publishers.
- Still some book refs in split format and others not.
- Still a mix of cite templates and hand written references, resulting in inconsistently formatted references.
- Still a mix of British and American spellings (both criticized and criticised, for instances)
- Still one dab link.
Probably more to come, this is just another quick skim. Dana boomer (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on these, but am at present on holiday and have only limited internet access. I'd like to request for an extension of a couple of weeks in order to enable me to complete the work once I return. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine - FAR/FARCs are allowed to remain open as long as necessary if an article is being improved consistently. Thanks for the note. Dana boomer (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this FAR now. I will pitch in on this too and try to resolve your issues.--Pamri • Talk 03:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can we get an update as to the ongoing work here? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All issues raised above, plus some more, have been addressed. References have been added where necessary, redundant/unnecessary references removed, all references consistently formatted using templates, publisher details and accessdates added, dab links and spelling fixed, image captions shortened wherever possible, and sources replaced with better-quality ones. Further inputs are awaited. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

Still need to check British/American spellings. Still both jewelry and jewellery, organized/organised, colonize/colonise, hordes of ization/isation, etc, etc, etc. Done.
Still have inconsistently formatted refs. #5 is a bare link, #10 has its retrieval date formatting differently, #19 is a bare link, #52 has no publisher, what is #59, #138 has no access date, #200 has no publisher. This is just from a quick scan, and this is the third time I've pointed out inconsistencies like this.
Ref 17 (World Economic Forum) is dead Removed.
Text should not be sandwiched between images, as it is in the Infrastructure section Done.
Pre-colonial period, "with a dominant subsistence sector dependent on primitive technology." What is a "dominant subsistence sector"? Clarified.
Colonial period, What is a "policy of discriminating protection"? Clarified (although the source does not directly define the term, an explanation has been added).
Post-liberalisation, "capacity expansion for incumbents". Incumbents of what? Clarified with wikilink.
Post liberalisation, "reduced corporate taxes and small scale industries are created in large numbers" What? Clarified.
Post liberalisation, "This has been accompanied by increases in life expectancy, literacy rates and food security." This sentence seems to imply that there is a link between government liberalization and population health/education improvements. Do the sources actually make such a link? If not, it might be better to place this sentence elsewhere, or at least make it clear that there is no scientifically-proven link between the two. Clarified.
Post liberalisation, "by its nuclear tests in 1998" Nuclear power? Nuclear bombs? Nuclear genetics? Clarified with wikilink.
Post liberalisation, "is believed to play a major role in the global economy in the 21st century." The 21st century is now. Do people believe that it currently plays a major role, or do they believe that it will play a major role further into the 21st century. Clarified.
Industry and services, "In absolute terms," What do you mean by "absolute terms"? As opposed to what other kind of terms? As opposed to percentage terms (i.e. as a % of GDP).
Industry and services, "Economic reforms brought". Reforms when? Clarified.
Industry and services, "fast-moving consumer goods." What is meant by "fast moving" goods? Clarified with wikilink.
Energy and power, "India is also believed to be rich in certain renewable sources" How can you be "believed to be rich" in something like the sun or wind? Clarified.
There is quite a bit of overlinking that I found in the article - some of it I removed, but another check would be good. Most countries, basic terms like "agriculture" and others don't need to be linked. Linking only to high-value links prevents the dilution of the linking experience for the reader - if all they see is a sea of blue links, they are less likely to click on any of them. Done; please let me know if there are any more links which are unnecessary.

Gotten through the Sectors section so far, will do the rest later. Dana boomer (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove, unfortunately. I remember calling for this article to be radically improved ages ago. I can't believe it was promoted to FA status. I does seem better than when I last saw it; but just looking at random—

Why is "US" specified for dollars at all, let alone every time (see MOSNUM), why is it linked? I see a space ($ X) in at least one instance. Spaces have been removed; the "US" and link is due to the use of the {{INRConvert}} template which auto-links the currency.
En dashes needed for the year ranges, not hyphens. I'll run a script on it now.
Exports map: the caption needs to be more explicit, and the map about twice the size. Same with the other maps. Done.
Poverty-line graph: fuzzy visually, and the caption is weird: "Percentage of population living under the poverty line of $1 (PPP) a day, currently 356.35 rupees a month in rural areas (around $7.4 a month)." Done.
"World map showing the Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality."—So India is light blue; shouldn't the caption say that India is among countries placed ???? in the Gini index? Done.
"~~The question of~~ whether economic reforms have reduced poverty ~~or not~~ has fuelled debates without generating ~~any~~ clear-cut answers and has ~~also~~ put political pressure on further economic reforms, ...". Prose problems in the redundant wording (this needs attention throughout); how does one put pressure on further economic reforms? And shortly after I see "and has also put political pressure on further reforms" again. Done.
"chronic or disguised unemployment" -> "chronic (disguised) unemployment", piped accordingly. Done.
"banning employment of children (under 14) in"—the employment of. And why the parentheses? Done.
Spaced em dashes (see MOSDASH). Replaced with spaced en dashes throughout the article.
Overlinked: e.g. telecommunications, textiles, chemicals, food processing, steel, transportation equipment, cement, mining, petroleum, machinery, information technology, pharmaceuticals. Done.

Tony (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked for more instances of the prose issues Tony mentioned above, or did you just fix the ones he mentioned? After sweeping the article again, please ping Tony and ask him to return to his comments. Dana boomer (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have generally swept the article and cleaned it up as far as possible in order to address the concerns above. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerns edit

File:Indian Notes 10 100 500.JPG: Derivative of copyrighted works without permission; these currency, issued in 1996 or later, are copyrighted by the Indian government for 60 years (not even factoring their copyright status in the US). Replaced by File:Indian rupees.png whose issues are listed below
File:Cumulative Current Account Balance.png: Where on Gunnmap is it stated that its works can be released into the public domain? It specifically states in Finish: "All generated images are licenced under CC-BY-SA", which means all derivatives (by sharealike) must follow the CC-BY-SA or similar licenses.
Changes to licensing should best be made by the author themselves. I have informed Emilfaro and asked if he would agree with the correction.[2] Jappalang (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:RBI Tower.jpg: Wikipedia is not a valid source. Where did this image originally come from? Who is its copyright holder? Considering that there is a CC-licensed photograph with a wider coverage,[3] it will be necessary to properly attribute the licensing per requirements. Replaced by the original version that was on Commons
File:FarmersIndia.jpg: A local administrator should confirm if this was uploaded here under CC-BY-SA-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 and GFDL.
File:Kochi India slums.jpg: Author (k r ranjith)-Uploader (Roberto Mura) discrepancy needs to be covered by OTRS.
File:MauryanCoin.JPG: PHG's local upload should be checked for whether it was his work and if he did release into the public domain. However, World Imaging's upload of his better image have complicated the issue. Please refer to commons:Commons:Village pump#Replacing one copyrightable work with another separate copyrightable work for enlightenment for details.
File:2006Indian exports.PNG: The base map, File:BlankMap-World.png, has no indication of where it is derived from. Such a detailed map is unlikely to be made from nothing, and the author has not given any indication of what copyright status the source material is (commons:Commons:Image casebook#Maps and satellite images).
Not quite. The issue is not that "No source information provided" (Vardion is the source), but that no information is given on what basis the map was created. See also the issues that surround File:World Map Gini coefficient.png.
~~File:Gini Coefficient World CIA Report 2009.png: No base map indicated (CIA source is for the coefficient data).~~ Replaced by File:World Map Gini coefficient.png, whose issues are noted below.
File:Precolonial national income of India(1857-1900).png: Is this an own work, or is it copied directly from the source indicated (there are no clear indications on either)? If copied, then the uploader does not have the authority to release the work into public domain, and it has to be explained why such a work is in the public domain.
~~File:Per capita GDP of South Asian economies & SKorea (1950-1995).png: Same as above~~
~~File:Private and public industry employment in India(2003).png: Same as above~~
~~File:BPL Data GOI.png: Same as above~~
File:Indian rupees.png: This copyrighted image fails to meet WP:NFCC criteria #8 ("contextual significance"). The rationale "Used only to depict the notes on Wikipedia pages" does not help to explain why this image is contextually significant to the article about India's economy; such a picture also seems more relevant to an article about the country's currency than its economy (which is more than just the rupee; the currency is an abstraction of the economy of the country).
File:World Map Gini coefficient.png: The base map File:BlankMap-World.png has no information of how it is created and licensing whatsoever. Perhaps it was vandalised; however, this older version also gives no information of how the base map was created (which data set used, or what public domain reference map). Furthermore, images that display data should state the sources for the data in the image page per WP:V. The sources for the Gini 2005 data should be stated.

Number ~~1 and~~ 2 are the most serious—violations of copyrights/licensing. Numbers ~~3, and~~ 4 probably just need local administrator verification/vouching. Number 5 needs an OTRS (unless uploader is Jimbo Wales... see commons:User talk:Abigor/Archives/2010/May#Hmm and commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 21#OTRS permissions required for old cases?). ~~Number 6 could potentially be messy, but I would prefer to have World Imaging's version (if it gets spin off to another file name or retained here with copyright clarification).~~ Numbers 7 and 8 have to state what is the base map's copyright status (and where it was obtained or how created). The charts/diagrams have to state clearly whether they are the uploaders' own work (based on the sources of information given) or copied content that are not eligible for copyright protection. Jappalang (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number 13 is a fair use consideration and I believe a photograph of the currency is not really a good representation (identification photograph) of the concept of a country's economy. Jappalang (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 2, is it necessary that the images be licensed under CC, especially when Gunmapp seems to be only a software for creating the image? Shouldn't the broader license apply? Please clarify.

Re: 4-5, since I'm not an administrator, could an administrator please verify these?

Re: 7, the map seems to have been used across multiple projects without any problem. The creator's user page (currently inactive) mentions that they have created several maps on WP and also licenses all their contributions under CC, does that help?

Re: 8, the user has not made any contributions for 18 months and appears to be inactive. What course of action do you suggest?

Re: 9-12, the descriptions seem to indicate that the map is an original work, while data have been taken from the respective sources mentioned. However, I'll request the creator to clarify.

Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 2. CC is a license (the author retains his copyright but allows it to be used by others without permission). It is not a surrender of copyright as is a declaration of public domain. The map is a derivative work of Gunmapp; as such it should abide by Gunmapp's licensing requirements, anything else is a violation of the terms the author of Gunmapp has decided his works should be used.

Re: 7. It would be much preferable to have those details. Several old uploads have been found to be copyviolations, even though they were widely used.

Re: 8. Either transfer the data onto a base map that is verifiable to be in the public domain or created from pure geographic data or a CC-licensed map, or try to investigate where the base map came from (exact match). Jappalang (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 9-12, Yes, I am the creator of those charts and thats why I used the self-PD template back then. --Pamri • Talk 03:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected 9-11 with your clarification,[4][5][6] but I am curious why you claim #12 as your work. Are you IndianCow (talk · contribs)? Jappalang (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 2, I have replaced the licensing information in the file description per your comments above. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 7, this seems to have been resolved now. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 8, the image has been replaced with File:World Map Gini coefficient.png which does not seem to have any issues. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 4, the image has been removed.

Re: 7/14, some information has been added [File:BlankMap-World.png here]; could you please clarify on the talk page of that article as to what the specific issue is? Meanwhile, I have removed both images from the article until the issues surrounding them are resolved.

Re: 12, the page indicates that the website mentioned is the source of the data. The copyright holder (i.e. the creator of the image) has released it under the GFDL. What else needs to be done?

Re: 13, the currency is the best abstraction of a country's economy. The use of the image in the infobox is intended to provide a representation of the country's economy which would thereby enhance readers' understanding about it. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 4, eh this has not been removed... maybe Pamri could help confirm the licenses this and 5 had when they were uploaded to Wikipedia?

Re: 7/14, I have raised the issue at commons:File talk:BlankMap-World.png#Source of data for this map?.

Re: 12, firstly, which reports on that website? There are more than 20 downloads and 17 multiple-field downloads. Secondly, User:IndianCow is the copyright holder of the image. Is the admin Pamri saying he or she is User:IndianCow?

Re: 13, I do not agree. Economies are indicators that are not expressly defined in the country's own currency. It can be expressed in terms of US dollar, Japanese yen, etc. In short, it is a relative figure without a standard unit. The rupee notes are not indicative of India's economy. A collage of photographs (which "free" versions can be found) of India's main economic activities/strengths would be more representative of the country's economy than a shot of copyrighted paper bills.

-- Jappalang (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Meant to remove 12, not 4, ended up removing neither :D

Thanks for the comments and follow-up. Subsequent to their issues being resolved, both 7 and 14 have been reinstated into the article. 12 has been removed pending resolution of its issues. 4 and 5 are essentially admin tasks which I am not unfortunately in a position to perform.

Re: 13, a discussion has been opened on the talk page inviting suggestions for images to be included in the proposed collage/montage. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other concerns edit

I shortened the dollar statement at the top (by more than half). The wikilinking/piping needs attention throughout.

Why these links? "Major agricultural [[product (business)|products]],
Why the pipe? market-based economy. There's a fixation on "-based".
Newpapers (NYT, Mint, etc) should be italicised.
"social democratic-based policies" -> "social democratic policies"?
Why not make the link explicit, or readers will think it's a useless common-term link: "accelerated India's [[economic development in India|economic growth rate]". Same with this: "[[Agriculture in India|Agriculture]] is the predominant occupation in India" -> "Agriculture in India is the predominant occupation".
Who is going to click on these links? "rice, wheat, oilseed, cotton, jute, tea, sugarcane, potatoes, cattle, water buffalo, sheep, goats, poultry and fish"?
% and percent in the same para.
"2009-10 government survey"—see my previous comment about dashes.

That's the opening. I appreciate the work that has been done thus far, this has been here since 16 November—too long. This is a textbook case of a FA that should have been delisted after a group of editors was established to bring to again to FAC. Tony (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for this delayed response; I've had only sporadic internet access over the past few days. My replies to your comments are as follows:

Re: "based", it's a characteristic of Indian English which this article follows, and was mentioned on the talk page as well (I have now added a template to make this clearer).
Re: overlinking, as a general rule, I have linked words that could be ambiguous in their meaning—such as "product", provide useful related information ("fertiliser", "irrigation", "tax haven"), and also some others that I thought were technical terms or uncommon things which would not be known to an average reader (hence "oilseed", "water buffalo" etc.). I have removed some of the more obvious, such as "cattle", "poultry" and others.

Finally, I think it's unfair to insist on delisting as long as work is in progress on the article—nothing is lost by retaining it on FARC as long as feedback is provided and the article improved accordingly, whether in respect of prose or otherwise. I appreciate all the comments that have been provided thus far, and I will continue working on any more that are provided. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SBC-YPR, if you have finished with Tony's comments, as well as given the article another good look over, please ping him to come back and review the article again. You may also want to ask some other editors from related projects or who may have an interest in the article to come by and leave comments. Dana boomer (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update? - are Tony's comments dealt with, and if so has he been pinged? Have any other editors been asked to leave comments? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I had no time to go through the entire artciley but here are some useful comments (I hope):

Infobox/Credit rating: $1.164 trillion (2010 est.)- What does it mean?
Lead section is very short (one paragraph only): It should be a summary of the article itself (ideally 3-4 paragraphs as per WP:MoS).
Section about "economic trends and issues": Why not merge this section with another more specific section (for example, with agriculture, for the related forecast)?
Overall article structure could be improved (see Economy of Iran as a possible model).

I hope it helps! SSZ (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It says "4000 billion cubic metres", "1123 billion cubic metres", "1074 billion cubic metres". It would be easier to comprehend if 'billion cubic metres' were expressed succinctly as 'cubic kilometres'.
It says "crore" in several places. I think the article would be more widely accessible if crore values were converted into trillions.
It says "9,587 MW", "164,835 megawatts", "128400 MW", and "652.2 billion kWh". I think the precision is greater than necessary and could be expressed as '9.6 GW', '165 gigawatts', '128 GW', and '652,000 GWh'. The reduced precision would make easier to read.

These opinions are not strongly held, feel free to do something different or ignore them. Lightmouse (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - This article has been at FAR for almost 7 months, and while it has improved, there are still significant prose and MOS issues:

The lead is far too short for an article of this length
Prose is still far below the standard of FA. Run on sentences, plural/singular agreement, missing comments after sentence clauses, etc. all need to be dealt with, and the editors appear to be simply fixing given examples and neglecting a full read-through of the article.
Text sandwiched between images in the Pre-colonial period (up to 1773) section.

Although the referencing has improved immensely, the significant prose issues in this article is still holding it up from being of FA caliber. Dana boomer (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Agreeing that 7 months of FAR is long and probably too long.

3c Some image copyright problems still remain per above image review.
Article fails MOS:LINKS, MOS:IMAGES and MOS:LEDE.
I see a lot of effort was expended in fixing problems but likely the article was too far gone to begin with. Brad (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.