I failed to verify various facts from the sources; I didn't entirely complete the check, not even every detail in the WN:lede, so there could easily be other verification problems I just didn't get to; please ensure all facts in the article are verified by the sources (except extremely obvious, like "Mumbai is in Maharashtra").
The lede is presented non-neutrally, both with melodramatic phrasing (many of those phrases have verification problems as well) and with details that belong later than the lede (I'm thinking of Tolstoy Einstein and perhaps Hitler).
Shifted the sentence in question to the end of the second paragraph.
Items I've noted:
"In an unlikely display of political unity" — seems unverifiable and analytical/POV. Can be simply deleted as it doesn't really serve a news function (I may well do that myself, after this review).
Didn't find anyone using the exact phrase "holiest book"; an objective description of its significance would seem more appropriate there anyway.
This is a close paraphrase of the opening statement of source 6, [3]. Paraphrased it further as "one of the most sacred Hindu texts".
Didn't find document title "List of Extremist Materials" or similar.
It's from the newly added source I failed to include in the first place: [4]
"extremism" and "social discord" appear to be direct quotes from news sources — do not directly quote news sources.
These are the charges quoted (as direct quotes) by most media from the original complaint by the prosecutor's office: [5], so I felt justified to quote them as well.
Didn't verify that SM Krishna was summoned.
I had a source by cannot find it. Fixed.
Didn't verify that SM Krishna addressed both houses.
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.
I failed to verify various facts from the sources; I didn't entirely complete the check, not even every detail in the WN:lede, so there could easily be other verification problems I just didn't get to; please ensure all facts in the article are verified by the sources (except extremely obvious, like "Mumbai is in Maharashtra").
The lede is presented non-neutrally, both with melodramatic phrasing (many of those phrases have verification problems as well) and with details that belong later than the lede (I'm thinking of Tolstoy Einstein and perhaps Hitler).
Shifted the sentence in question to the end of the second paragraph.
Items I've noted:
"In an unlikely display of political unity" — seems unverifiable and analytical/POV. Can be simply deleted as it doesn't really serve a news function (I may well do that myself, after this review).
Didn't find anyone using the exact phrase "holiest book"; an objective description of its significance would seem more appropriate there anyway.
This is a close paraphrase of the opening statement of source 6, [8]. Paraphrased it further as "one of the most sacred Hindu texts".
Didn't find document title "List of Extremist Materials" or similar.
It's from the newly added source I failed to include in the first place: [9]
"extremism" and "social discord" appear to be direct quotes from news sources — do not directly quote news sources.
These are the charges quoted (as direct quotes) by most media from the original complaint by the prosecutor's office: [10], so I felt justified to quote them as well.
Didn't verify that SM Krishna was summoned.
I had a source by cannot find it. Fixed.
Didn't verify that SM Krishna addressed both houses.
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.
"In an unlikely display of political unity" is still the opening on this article. That violates WN:NPOV as it is your opinion, to use such phrasing would requite part of the opening be a quote from someone. --Brian McNeil / talk20:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
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.
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.
Done. Thank you. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
