I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article covers all the required information with reliable sources. I have worked very hard and re-wrote entire article but I feel I am missing something. Because it got quickfailed twice. I would like to invite expertise including @DaxServer:@Jonathansammy:@Kailash29792:@Fylindfotberserk:@Dwaipayan:@TheWikiholic:@Tito Dutta:@Vanamonde93:@Yunshui:@Chipmunkdavis:@Fowler&fowler: and other editors as well. Please provide me your valuable feedback, it will help me as well the article. Thanks 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS🍁 10:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the points I made back in the first GAN look like they remain pertinent. The lead remains overly long and focused on history to the detriment of other sections. Similarly little seems to have been done in the body to address the excessive length of the history section (in one place it seems to have grown?). Unsourced text remains, including entire paragraphs and the state/Deputy PM tables (I also note the former PM table source does not make the acting distinction the article makes). Ghose 1993 and Kopstein 2005 don't point anywhere. CMD (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding @Chipmunkdavis:. I have tried my best to summarise history part but considering age of the party its history section is bound to be lengthy. I have created independent section of party's situation post 2000s to avoid the concern that you have raised. Ghose 1993 and Kopstein 2005 removed. As raised in first GAN, contents have been added to section having tables viz. General election results, Presence in states and UTs and List of prime ministers. Coming to List of deputy prime ministers, I will add few sentences. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS🍁 16:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The history section is not bound to be lengthy, that is an editorial choice. WP:Summary style is the relevant guideline, and there is already a main article on the subject. CMD (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please advice what steps should I take to overcome this concern? Will it be a good idea if I make Pre / Post -Independence as separate section. I actually liked the idea that main article is there so no need to mention in detail. I have made few changed, please check and let me know if it looks good. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS🍁 15:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should be summarised, with detail left to the main page. Changing the sectioning doesn't affect this. CMD (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am trying my best to summarise, I cannot exclude notable topics. Consider Indira Gandhi section. She has been PM for 15 years so putting everything in 2-3 paragraphs is quite tough. We will have to include major occurrences under her premiership. Events like Privy purse, Emergency, Nationalisation of Banks and her assassination are notable and we cannot skip them. Or else other editors will question why major matters related to Gandhi is not mentioned. We can get ride of second last paragraph of it. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS🍁 11:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been 15 days since I have raised peer review request. Sadly, I have not received enough suggestions I was hoping for. I have no option than ask an admin to close this review after few days. Thank you all. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS🍁 06:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@25 Cents FC: it is not unusual for a peer review to wait a month to receive a response. Admin are not needed to close a PR; instructions on how to close a peer review are located here, and any editor can close a review. Z1720 (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 10:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)