Hello DTM, I'll take up the review for this nomination and will present it to you shortly. I hope you will find my feedback to be helpful. Tayi ArajakateTalk 12:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hi! Thank you for taking this up. Looking forward to the review. DTM (talk) 05:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
DiplomatTesterMan, I've completed the review. The article is close to the good article criteria but there are some issues which need to be resolved before I can promote it, see the comments and assessment sections below for specifics. I'm putting the article on hold for the time being, feel free to ask any questions or raise any concerns with the review. Tayi ArajakateTalk 13:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Tayi Arajakate I have tried to address all the issues. Please let me know if any of the issues have not been completely resolved, or if by any chance there are new ones. Thank you. DTM (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
DiplomatTesterMan, I have reviewed all the changes, great work on the article, it has addressed all the issues pointed out quite well. I am inclined to promote it looking at the quality but I do think the restructured article has introduced new issues with regards to balance. The lead seems to over-emphasize Modi's response while the body over-emphasizes the opposing perspectives now, particular MacKenzie's. Recommend expanding upon some of the other reception besides the two mentioned above. I would also recommend removing this line, "[T]he debate was a reflection of both Britain and India, what it means to debate, and what it means to be a democracy today" from the lead, it sounds more like a platitude. Tayi ArajakateTalk 14:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
I have promoted the article as there are no other issues with it and I don't think it should hold the article from being passed. It probably needs to be discussed out of the scope of this review. Tayi ArajakateTalk 14:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I have made some additional changes as per the new suggestions. The last suggestion related to reception is still left which I will address shortly. DTM (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
The first line in the lead seems to assume that readers would know what Oxford Union is and how it functions. The lead needs to make the context clearer.
Done. Added "a debating society" and there is a sub-section below on the Union. If it needs more elaboration in the intro please let me know.
The lead also needs to introduce Tharoor, this isn't done till the background section even though he is repeatedly mentioned before it.
Done.
"His speech was full of wit, passion and insight." Seems too subjective as to be only usable when attributed. I would suggest instead elaborating more on his argument in the first paragraph and then mentioning attributed descriptions of his speech if it has to be included.
Removed.
"The side Tharoor was on" sounds a bit awkward, I would suggest rephrasing it.
Done.
This is just a general note, the lead usually doesn't need in-line citations as long as the material is cited in the body of the article.
Removed.
"The Oxford Union debate in the 'Debating Chamber'", seems redundant. I would suggest replacing it with a description of the process.
While I understand the process, I couldn't find an online source that talks of the process and at the same time connects it to Oxford Union debates, and specifically this debate. Do you suggest any specific reference, something I may have missed or overlooked.
The first quotation in the section on Speech seems unnecessary, his time allotment and him being the "seventh speaker out of eight" should just be included in text.
Section re-written.
The section begins with reception of his speech which should come at the end, be attributed and expanded. I would in fact recommend re-naming the section "Impact and Aftermath" to "Reception" and including these in there.
Renamed as suggested. Content shifted.
"While Tharoor himself did not provide attribution to his speech, some columnists have tried to verify the facts he cited." This line is not explicitly supported by the citations and should be removed.
Removed.
The section on Speech states the topics he covered but not his arguments themselves beyond the line on the railways, it should be expanded upon being the primary subject of the article itself. Many of the sources used in the article describe his arguments.
Section re-written.
"Tharoor focused on the principle of owing reparation rather than how much was owed." This line should be cited to a secondary source instead of a transcript. The following quotation also seems a bit redundant after it, and could just be a replaced with a line on his demand for an apology.
I have extensively removed usage of the transcript. However I have left it at one location in the section for the "debate#Tharoor", near the end. Can it be there as a sort of bibliography for the section, or merely a citation for that line, or should I remove it from that one location as well?
"In the end, Tharoor was on the winning side of the debate, winning by 185 votes to 56." This line can sound like Tharoor was the sole winner in the debate rather than the team speaking in favor of the proposition being the winner
Done.
"It was a trending topic in India for a number of days", needs to specify that it was a trending topic on social media in India.
Done.
"what he [Tharoor] spoke there reflected the sentiments of the citizens of India", the quotation should either use "he" or "[Tharoor]" not both.
Done.
Recommend referring to The Telegraph as The Daily Telegraph instead so that it's not confused with the Indian one.
I've just add UK in front of, The Telegraph UK, hope this should be ok.
Both quotations from The Telegraph and The Guardian articles are of headlines that more or less say the same thing. Headlines are also generally not considered reliable, the two sources should just be used to describe Modi's response and don't need to be attributed.
Done.
John MacKenzie is introduced twice and wikilinked thrice in the article. Richard Ottaway is also wikilinked twice.
Addressed
There are a couple iffy sources such as Firstpost, The Economic Times and The Spectator(RSP entry), there is also a somewhat widespread use of primary sources. This is a political and potentially contentious subject so I would suggest replacing them with better secondary sources if possible.
Removed the mentioned sources.
In general, I would also recommend using more summarisations and less quotations.
Done. However I have still used a few quotations. If they are still too much let me and I will make the changes.
Maybe the article should have an image of Tharoor?
Added some images. Hopefully all are suitable. I had put a small location map however have removed it now. DTM (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Pass
Neutral