This article is written in
Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
project page or contribute to the
discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Reviewed: Exempted, in absence of required number of DYKNs.
Comment: Content copied from user-space to main-space on the same date as article creation.
QPQ not needed. New enough, plenty long enough, with a cited and present hook. As a note for the future, reference citations go after periods when placed at the end of sentences and after commas at the end of a clause. This is ready to go.
Raymie (
t •
c)
04:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)reply
That's exactly what I was referring to. Other parts of the article allude to provisions in earlier versions of the bill that were later removed, e.g. in the "Criticism and reactions" section: The 2019 bill did away only with few of the criticised provisions of the 2016 and 2018 bills, such as the District Screening Committee and the criminalisation of begging. I think it would be clearer if these were described in the "Statutory provisions" section (possibly in a little more detail). Even though the title is
Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019, the article is about the whole history of the bill, including its earlier iterations.
Colin M (
talk)
19:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Looks good, I've removed the template. I think it might be easier to read if it were organized into subsections (per provision - e.g. begging, anti-discrimination, transgender children, certification), or maybe if it had a bulleted list? But that's just a minor quibble.
Colin M (
talk)
21:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Colin M: I understand that. The only reason I chose to not do that is that it may not be stylistically the best. Hence, I chose to focus the first paragraph on controversial provisions of the 2018 bill and then moving on to provisions of the 2019 bill, while drawing parallels with the 2018 version. It would indeed be of help if you choose to edit the section to make it more understandable and coherent. --Tamravidhir (
talk)05:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Earwig gave a false positive, but it's good. I would just be careful more and make sure you add quote marks when you are directly quoting something in the bill.
The article is certainly on the shorter side. However, this seems to be because there really are only three aspects to the topic: the background, the bill's provision, and the criticism of it. There's no doubt that to me that this meets the broad in its coverage criteria of GA, but this might be a significant barrier if the article were to try to make it to Featured class.
Please fix the remaining issues, and you should be all set. 23:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
MOS issues
I'm just going to list them here. Feel free to just cross them out using <s></s> as you address them.
Law Ministry is capitalized but doesn't link to anything. If it is a proper noun, then please link to the primary topic, but otherwise I think that it probably needs to be lowercase per
MOS:INSTITUTIONS.
@
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 alwaysping!01:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)reply
@
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)reply
@
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 alwaysping!06:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)reply
@
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)reply
@
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 alwaysping!07:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
@
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)reply
@
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)reply
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)reply
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 alwaysping!12:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)reply