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
in

A letter shared on Google Drive

 * 

Interviews shared on Wikimedia Commons










Comments on article
I 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]

 * 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)