Talk:Litigation for Varanasi Heritage intensifies
The author of this article has lived many years in Varanasi. He has been working in the department of Modern European Languages of the Benares Hindu University and has completed a Ph.D. in Indian philosophy. He works as a documentary maker and knew before Vrinda Dar, whom he had interviewed for RAI, the Italian Television, and for the International Cooperation Project financed by the European Union "Eugad".
The original material consulted can be reviewed
editin
Published affidavit
edit- "Affidavit for the WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO.31229 OF 2005 submitted to the Court on the 8th of November" — The Kautilya Society, November 8, 2013
Published letters‘’’
edit- "The Sections of the Penal Code mentioned on the FIR do not correspond at all to any of the allegations made in the FIR." — Kautilya Society, October 21, 2013
- "Varanasi Development Authority (VDA) officers are misusing their official power to harass citizens" — Kautilya Society, June 8, 2013.
A letter shared on Google Drive
editInterviews shared on Wikimedia Commons
edit
The PIL was started as a contribution for the candidature of Varanasi- यूनेस्को की विश्व धरोहर सूची में नामांकन के लिए जनहित याचिका शुरू की गई How the cooperation with Local Authorities became conflictual - सहयोग कैसे युद्ध में बदल गया ? In Varanasi there is a unhealthy business environment - वाराणसी में व्यवसायिक वातावरण अस्वास्थ्यकर है Why they want to silence me - मेरी आवाज बंद करना चाहते हैं Review of revision 2152432 [Not ready]
edit  |
Revision 2152432 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: You obviously worked hard on this article and you write extremely well. Please remember, however, that WN is an international news source, so you have to write for EVERYONE. This article is filled with acronyms (which can be very confusing). Also, "Varanasi Heritage".....is that an organization? Is that referencing the general history of the city of Varanasi? Is it a series of court decisions? What is it? You've also listed a mountain of sources.....we only list sources if they provide some concrete info in the article-proper. Your very first sentences mentions the "Ganga bench"--- what is that? The name of a court? In general, this article needs to be tightened up. --Bddpaux (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews. |
Revision 2152432 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: You obviously worked hard on this article and you write extremely well. Please remember, however, that WN is an international news source, so you have to write for EVERYONE. This article is filled with acronyms (which can be very confusing). Also, "Varanasi Heritage".....is that an organization? Is that referencing the general history of the city of Varanasi? Is it a series of court decisions? What is it? You've also listed a mountain of sources.....we only list sources if they provide some concrete info in the article-proper. Your very first sentences mentions the "Ganga bench"--- what is that? The name of a court? In general, this article needs to be tightened up. --Bddpaux (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews. |
Comments on article
editI added image credit for all the images. The article had few categories, so I added a few. It would be helpful if additional relevant categories were added because it would make it easier as a reviewer to conceptualize what this article is about. I also removed the external links as it was unclear why these were there. They are not sources I do not think? Are the videos important to watch to verify the article? I removed several from the article, because it was slightly disruptive to the formatting. --LauraHale (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Rahulkepapa 17:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)~ I agree with the removal of unessential interviews and unessantial external links. I have added some relevant categories. Two are new. May be removed if now are too many.
- There's a lot of good work done here...by-and-large, this is a pretty massive article (from a source standpoint, word-count standpoint etc.).....I've already gotten way too involved to give it a fair review. I've crossed over into the arena of re-construction. Someone else will have to handle it. --Bddpaux (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Honestly, as much as I would like to do it, I am at a conference today and tomorrow, and then traveling for two days. I just do not have the time to do it. :( My inclination would be to not ready it now. After reading the first sentence, I have no idea what the article is about. The first paragraph is really, really, really long. The first two sentences need to be combined into one long sentence or two shorter ones, that more succinctly answers who, what, where, when and why. Something like "On Thursday, the Allahabad High Court in India published a key judgment relating the protection of the environmental and architectural heritage in the proximity of the river Ganges. It follows a hearing earlier in the month November." Even that doesn't quite work. "On Thursday, the Allahabad High Court in India published a key judgment in a case filed by the Kautilya Society, an Indian non governmental organization that has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.), who the Society accused of negligence in enforcing the heritage protection laws in the historic city centre of Varanasi." Still long, but at least it answers WHO and WHAT much better. --LauraHale (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I really understand your points. However I find some of the remarks a bit too much in a "wasp" outlook of the English language style. English is now is used as a medium of communication in many different countries and I think some culturally different approaches should be allowed. This is especially true in places like India, where some "formalism" is needed in order to respect the etiquette of Indian society. Surely Indian should learn to use a less "Indian" and more global style of news making. But also global news making platform like Wikimedia should allow some Indian way of styling the language. That can be better edited by natives of England or USA or Canada, or Australia, or New Zeland. But not so easy for those who live and work in a different english speaking environment to use with full spontaneity a different language etiquette. --LRahulkepapa (talk) Rahulkepapa (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- and personally, I couldn't agree more. However, I've read, hmmmmmmm, maybe 40 article (written in English) released by Indian news outlets. Generally, they tend to go on and on and ON AND ON.....AND ON AND ON AND ON in their verbosity. Overall, that doesn't fit within our style guide here. There can be (and always will be) the occassional exception to that. There's no word limit here, period. But any article (that gets published at least) must have (and maintain) clear focus. --Bddpaux (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I liked a lot and tried to follow the suggestion of making it shorter and eventually develop it further in successive news articles. I just need to get away with the "first" so that there will be a continuity in the process. --Rahulkepapa (talk) Rahulkepapa (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Review of revision 2154638 [Not ready]
edit| |
Revision 2154638 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: I'm going to ignore my previous comment about being too involved, because this has been lingering for some time now. Frankly, beyond paragraph 4, the whole thing begins to radically lose focus....I just can't follow much beyond that paragraph. I'm not totally certain paragraph 5 should even be left in, and paragraph 7 is missing some sort of thematic "glue" that's hard to put my finger on. Yes, we use inverted pyramid style, which means you can toss in a few bits of flotsam after the first couple of paragraphs, but this just loses all sense of direction after about paragraph 4. It is, however, a RADICAL IMPROVEMENT over previous versions. A superb effort in terms of resilience!!! --Bddpaux (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews. |
Revision 2154638 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: I'm going to ignore my previous comment about being too involved, because this has been lingering for some time now. Frankly, beyond paragraph 4, the whole thing begins to radically lose focus....I just can't follow much beyond that paragraph. I'm not totally certain paragraph 5 should even be left in, and paragraph 7 is missing some sort of thematic "glue" that's hard to put my finger on. Yes, we use inverted pyramid style, which means you can toss in a few bits of flotsam after the first couple of paragraphs, but this just loses all sense of direction after about paragraph 4. It is, however, a RADICAL IMPROVEMENT over previous versions. A superb effort in terms of resilience!!! --Bddpaux (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews. |
- God advices . It looks now much better with only 4 paras. Additional issues can be dealt with in other more successive articles. And putting it all together is confusing. -- Rahulkepapa (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Review of revision 2157591 [Passed]
edit  |
Revision 2157591 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Is this article perfect? No. But it's (at least) inches across the stale line and I don't want us to lose it (or its contributor). The sources/statements check out. I'm not fond of ok'ing the 2nd source (which is essentially a blog), but the video input cross-references OK....(so we'll take that). Generally speaking....good work!! --Bddpaux (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 2157591 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Is this article perfect? No. But it's (at least) inches across the stale line and I don't want us to lose it (or its contributor). The sources/statements check out. I'm not fond of ok'ing the 2nd source (which is essentially a blog), but the video input cross-references OK....(so we'll take that). Generally speaking....good work!! --Bddpaux (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |