This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Paging Vanamonde93 for advice:-
The withdrawal of the SGMS members did not, however, lead the government to disband the Committee. Letting it muddle on allowed Indira to maintain that she was still committed to finding a solution to the cow problem. Reconstituted after the federal poll of March 1971, under the chairmanship of retired judge G.K. Mitter, the Cow Protection Inquiry Committee finally delivered its report, without fanfare, in early 1973. (The New York Times, (19 March 1973).)
The committee was given six months to submit its report. It began actively, had numerous meetings and met a large cross-section of society. But it never actually submitted a report. Questions would keep getting asked in Parliament and the answers would be of the usual “the matter is under examination” type. Finally, after 12 years of its existence, Morarji Desai wound up the committee in 1979 when he was Prime Minister.
How to tackle the discrepancy? This is an episode, which's hardly covered in any significant detail by post-colonial scholars (as Copland alludes to) and accessing old newspapers in India to dig stuff up, is a Herculean task (at-least for writing a WP article). ∯WBG converse 13:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
the fact remained that the voters had delivered an unprecedented rebuke to the ruling party, and that some electors who had previously voted Congress had chosen to redirect their support to the parties of the Right. The BJS, an openly Hinducentric concern, had alone captured 77 parliamentary seats. Patently there were issues the Congress needed to address.
The result was: rejected by
BlueMoonset (
talk) 04:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Many issues still to be addressed, and no response from nominator despite many pings; closing as unsuccessful
5x expanded by Winged Blades of Godric ( talk). Self-nominated at 14:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy compliance:
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: Positive points: On 19 December the article had 6,518 bytes, on 26 December (nom date) it had 33,708 bytes. It was therefore expanded 5x in good time. The copyvio detector is timing out at the moment, so I have given the benefit of the doubt. The source for the hook has a paywall, so I have taken that in good faith. The nominator appears to have two DYKs, so I understand that there is no need for a QPQ here. Negative points: (1) I agree with above comments that the leader needs to be rewritten and shortened. (2) A number of citations require corrections (newspaper article titles missing). (3) The article needs to be checked for neutrality, e.g. the use of the words "mob" and "saints" in the leader, and the words "tremendous," and "brazen," in the main text. (4) There are questions/tags about verification and neutrality in the Cow slaughter and religion section. Conclusion Overall, I fear that the article in its present form may appear to show disrespect to those who revere cattle. The hook might well be good clickbait, but the use of the word "mob" may be likely to offend a large section of the people of the Hindu faith. With all these problems, and the fact that the nominator has not responded to the above comments, in my opinion this nom should be closed as suggested above. Storye book ( talk) 18:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Several sources have a weird title "ACTUAL ARTICLE TITLE BELONGS HERE". This should be fixed and updated with... the actual article title. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Paging Vanamonde93 for advice:-
The withdrawal of the SGMS members did not, however, lead the government to disband the Committee. Letting it muddle on allowed Indira to maintain that she was still committed to finding a solution to the cow problem. Reconstituted after the federal poll of March 1971, under the chairmanship of retired judge G.K. Mitter, the Cow Protection Inquiry Committee finally delivered its report, without fanfare, in early 1973. (The New York Times, (19 March 1973).)
The committee was given six months to submit its report. It began actively, had numerous meetings and met a large cross-section of society. But it never actually submitted a report. Questions would keep getting asked in Parliament and the answers would be of the usual “the matter is under examination” type. Finally, after 12 years of its existence, Morarji Desai wound up the committee in 1979 when he was Prime Minister.
How to tackle the discrepancy? This is an episode, which's hardly covered in any significant detail by post-colonial scholars (as Copland alludes to) and accessing old newspapers in India to dig stuff up, is a Herculean task (at-least for writing a WP article). ∯WBG converse 13:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
the fact remained that the voters had delivered an unprecedented rebuke to the ruling party, and that some electors who had previously voted Congress had chosen to redirect their support to the parties of the Right. The BJS, an openly Hinducentric concern, had alone captured 77 parliamentary seats. Patently there were issues the Congress needed to address.
The result was: rejected by
BlueMoonset (
talk) 04:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Many issues still to be addressed, and no response from nominator despite many pings; closing as unsuccessful
5x expanded by Winged Blades of Godric ( talk). Self-nominated at 14:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy compliance:
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: Positive points: On 19 December the article had 6,518 bytes, on 26 December (nom date) it had 33,708 bytes. It was therefore expanded 5x in good time. The copyvio detector is timing out at the moment, so I have given the benefit of the doubt. The source for the hook has a paywall, so I have taken that in good faith. The nominator appears to have two DYKs, so I understand that there is no need for a QPQ here. Negative points: (1) I agree with above comments that the leader needs to be rewritten and shortened. (2) A number of citations require corrections (newspaper article titles missing). (3) The article needs to be checked for neutrality, e.g. the use of the words "mob" and "saints" in the leader, and the words "tremendous," and "brazen," in the main text. (4) There are questions/tags about verification and neutrality in the Cow slaughter and religion section. Conclusion Overall, I fear that the article in its present form may appear to show disrespect to those who revere cattle. The hook might well be good clickbait, but the use of the word "mob" may be likely to offend a large section of the people of the Hindu faith. With all these problems, and the fact that the nominator has not responded to the above comments, in my opinion this nom should be closed as suggested above. Storye book ( talk) 18:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Several sources have a weird title "ACTUAL ARTICLE TITLE BELONGS HERE". This should be fixed and updated with... the actual article title. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)