Talk:Uniform Civil Code/GA1
GA Review[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: DiplomatTesterMan (talk · contribs) 07:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I will take up this review. I'll have a read and will message back with comments and the formal review. DTM (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Detailed review follows. If you wish, you may add an indented comment after each item. Please do not strike through completed items or add tick marks or other graphics. That will interfere with my own system of tracking progress. I will be doing the review in pieces.
- Lead/Intro
- The usage of Business Standard for the first line seems inappropriate since it leads to text with no publication date, no update date and no author. Further, since the lead is a summary of what is in the body, there should be nothing unique to the lead that is not mentioned in the body as per WP:MOSLEAD. This particular Business Standard link is not used anywhere else in the body. The same is the case with the second, third, fourth, fifth citations in the lead. Apart from the first citation of Business Standard, the other citations seem adequate for inclusion in the body. However, no page numbers have been given for the second reference – Shimon Shetreet and Hiram E. Chodosh, 2014.
The first sentence needs some work. Religion doesn't need to be mentioned and emphasized twice. Please note the usage of replace personal laws
in the first line. "replace"... Take for example what the second citation itself says "The mere existence of a civil law does not nullify the existence of religious law. […] The main law will be civil; the parallel law will be religious." Further, India's civil code has not been passed so we can't assume what it will "replace", unless you have sources for it and explain the same in the body. I will not get into the editorial aspect of this too much, but as the first line, it needs to be worked upon.- The usage of UCC is not consistent. Why is UCC explained near the bottom of the article? Please shift it to the lead.
I will come back to the lead after we get through the body. Please make sure it follows WP:MOSLEAD. DTM (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- British India (1858–1947)
- The first paragraph does not have a citation.
- Please make the page numbers more precise — For "Anil Chandra Banerjee (1984). English Law in India" shouldn't page number 133 also be referenced?
- Legislative reforms
The law discriminated
— can we be a bit more specific here. Which law? Laws in general? etc The next sentence mentions "Hindu", are we just talking about Hindus here. Please let the reader know that before and not after.which was also one of the first laws to ensure women's economic security
— one of the first laws in the world or in the Indian subcontinent?There were law reforms passed which were beneficial to women
— another general statement. The laws mentioned in front seem to only cater to Hindu women. Please specify this.- Lakshmi N. Menon — this seems like an important name to link. Please link it if it refers to the person in question.
The passing of the Hindu Women's right to Property Act of 1937, [...] its report to the Indian Parliament in 1947.
Please copyedit this paragraph.- The last paragraph deals with the
Special Marriage Act [...] first enacted in 1872
and theSpecial Marriage (Amendment) Act, 1923
. Why is this last? Arent't we going roughly chronologically? Couldn't it be placed before the paragraph mentioning theAIWC conference in 1933
?
- Hindu Code Bill and addition to the Directive Principles
- Citations 18 and 19 (following the line
Ambedkar recommended the adoption of a Uniform Civil Code
) are not formatted with correct detailing. - Citation 18, "Ambedkar And The Uniform Civil Code" by Christophe Jaffrelot, says
Considering that he had not been supported enough by the Prime Minister, Ambedkar sent him his letter of resignation from his government on 27 September.
This seems important, that the attempt to pass the civil code led to the resignation of Ambedkar. Ambedkar resigned in 1951. The last paragraph saysThus, a lesser version of this bill was passed by the parliament in 1956 [...] It was decided to add the implementation of a uniform civil code in Article 44 of the Directive principles of the Constitution specifying, "The State shall endeavour to secure for citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India."
So this directive was added after Ambedkar resigned as law minister and there was a new law minister? Please see if this needs to be clarified in short inline. - Citation 22, the citation following
[...] specifying, "The State shall endeavour to secure for citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India."
; please add citation detailing. - Please add a one word or short inline description of who she is if possible — Aparna Mahanta.
- Later years and Special Marriage Act
The Hindu code bill failed to control the prevalent gender discrimination.
Please address the generalisation.
- Significance of Shah Bano case
It further recommended that a uniform civil code be set up.
Please confirm that the reference that backs up this line actually cover this.- Citation 11 (Lawrence & Karim 2007, p. 262–264.) is used multiple times. However the page numbers mentioned p. 262–264 do not cover all the text referenced. Some of the content clearly spills over into p. 265.
- Jaffar Sharief can be linked.
- This phrasing or terminology "Muslim Women law" has not been used previously in the article. Please change accordingly.
- Current status and opinions
- Please make the date format throughout the article consistent. Currently I can see both DDMMYY and MMDDYY. The date template at the top is dmy.
- Please fix the page numbering in citation 27 (Chavan & Kidwai 2006, p. 13–20.). Page 19 is a section divider page and Page 20 in blank.
- Why does it say only
According to Qutub Kidwai
and not Nandini Chavan as well? - What is being referred to here?
This cannot be accepted
. Please give this quote some more context or remove "this". - This can be linked — Law Commission of India.
- Please copyedit the entire last paragraph and fix detailing of citations.
Indian society in [...] Indian society in
- Legal status and prospects
- Please make sure this is referenced
[...] included in BJP's manifesto for 1998 and 2019 elections [...]
- External links
- Please format external links correctly.
- Images
- Both seem ok
- References
- This book is in the bibliography — [Larson, Gerald James, ed. (2001), Religion and Personal Law in Secular India] — but I don't see it being used in the article. Please shift to further reading if not cited.
- Spelling
- Please make usage of Uniform Civil Code/uniform civil code consistent. All capital letters or all small letters?
- Copyright
- Earwigs catches two references for copyright — 1 & 2. These have been checked against the history of the article. They are a case of text being copied from Wikipedia.
DTM (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
I have reviewed the article and notified the nominator of the same. Currently I will put this review on hold for seven days for changes. I will give it a fresh review after 21 October 2020. DTM (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Aman.kumar.goel, I see that a few changes have been made which are looking good. Do you plan on making the other changes or should I close this review? DTM (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- DiplomatTesterMan I think you better close this review. I'm not having time to make any significant changes these days. I will again try in a couple of months after I modify the article actually. Regards Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)