Talk:Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Psiĥedelisto (talk · contribs) 23:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this shortly. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 23:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tamravidhir and MJL: I'm about ready to pass this article. I came across a lot of grammatical problems, but I was able to solve them. Unfortunately, I also came across a factual issue, which I've tagged with {{clarify}}. I think I could do it, but then I don't know if I could continue this review. So, I'd like you, Tamravidhir, to clarify how in what specific ways the 2014 bill is more progressive. After that I can pass this. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: I am afraid I am not happy with some of the edits that have been made and unfortunately presently I do not have time to look into this. At best I might take a week or so to get back to this. It's that every time when I am able to make out time to sit for a GA review the article gets picked up months later. This a general observation and not one against you. I would want to clarify the 'progressiveness' of the 2014 bill. That's a good clarification. When I mean that the 2014 bill was progressive, I want to refer to the fact that neither does it provide for a mechanism of certifying transgender persons not does it stay silent on the civil rights of transgender persons, including but not limited to, reservations. Tamravidhir (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tamravidhir: It was inappropriate for you to revert my changes wholesale, as there were many small changes in all areas, just see the diff. I'm glad you self-reverted, as that was very offensive. It is not just you who waits months for GAN's to be reviewed. We're all volunteers and there is no deadline for anything. If you have time to revert me and write that paragraph, you can make the requested change, which will only be a few words. I will then pass this as a GA, and you can make whatever other edits you see fit afterwards. Waiting a week is not an option, and will cause this to be failed again, after which I strongly recommend you not renominate because in the case of another failure so far two editors, MJL and I, have wasted their time assessing your work when you have no intention of sticking around. You should in future pull your nomination if you're taking a wikibreak. But really, you do have time to make the change, as you wrote me ten times the amount of words the change would be. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 06:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: See, when MJL had last started with the review and I couldn't coordinate, I had failed to provide a time during which I would be able to look into the suggestions. Like you wrote, and I quote, "(w)e're all volunteers and there is no deadline for anything". I fail to comprehend why waiting a week will not be an option, when I am not saying that I will not cooperate. I merely request, give me a week I will look into your changes by the end of it. A GA review is a process of collaboration and I am willing to cooperate if you are willing to cooperate and give me a week. As you said, "no deadline". Lastly, my replying to you cannot be equated with me having time to look into your edits. For while the latter requires scrutiny and fetching for resources, the former exercise lacks a requirement of the same. I request you to give me a week, I will get back to you. Tamravidhir (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tamravidhir: Sorry, I'm still kind of new to this. I thought that the seven day rule stated on the template {{GANotice}} is a hard rule. But, actually, you are correct, WP:GA/I#R3 is much more forgiving—about seven days. I've only done one GA review before, Chafin v. Chafin, and had one of my articles reviewed, Deseret alphabet. To be honest, I was also put in a bad mood due to your revert of many hours of my work on fixing the citations/grammar of the article, (I even read almost all the cited sources,) but you undid your revert so we can move on. Yes, I can wait a week. See you then. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 07:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: I have made some changes and updates to the article that I felt were required. I noticed that while changing the language you inadvertently introduced a few factual errors, that I have rectified. However, thanks for going through all the references and making changes where required. One thing I noted while editing was that you seemed to have overlooked the WP:OVERLINK guideline. I saw 'reservations in India' linked more than twice and one link to a page that redirect to the subject-article. Further, I do not feel words or phrases such as 'discrimination', 'begging', or 'gender identity' need to be liked. Let me know your views and any other changes if required. Tamravidhir (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tamravidhir: Remember, it's allowed and encouraged to repeat links at the first occurrence after the lead per MOS:REPEATLINK. We shouldn't assume readers are familiar with India, nor that they'll read the whole lead. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: I would not mind having some links, say to the elections or the party names or the House, repeated at the first occurrence after lead. But I am not in favour of having links to reservations or begging or discrimination or gender identity. I do refer to the the WP:OVERLINK guideline here. Tamravidhir (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Do let me know, we could agree on a solution. :) Tamravidhir (talk) 07:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tamravidhir: Sure, no problem about begging, discrimination, or gender identity. I do think that "reservation" should be linked because it's not called that in every country. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 08:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: Hi, sorry I could not reply earlier. Thank you for passing the article! I have also incorporated your recommendations to the article (check here). Take care, and thanks again! Tamravidhir (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

And I do understand that your initial stress on my cooperating with you in the review process was done in good faith. Bumpy start but I hope no hard feelings remain. --Tamravidhir (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

@Tamravidhir: I am pleased to pass this excellent article. I recommend that you nominate it for a WP:DYK, which all good articles have the right to do within seven days of promotion. There are many possible good DYK hooks in this article. (Sorry, not possible because it's been on DYK before. Didn't see that somehow!) I'm sorry we got off to a bit of a bumpy start, thank you for being patient. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 12:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I'm quite impressed that you took one of these photos yourself!

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: