Talk:Central Industrial Security Force Act

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Central Industrial Security Force Act article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

Central Industrial Security Force Act was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 26, 2021	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 12, 2020.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Central Industrial Security Force Act was amended after the 2008 Mumbai attacks to provide the force with a mandate to secure private enterprises?

India: Politics Low‑importance

	India portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination

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.

The result was: promoted by Amakuru (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the Central Industrial Security Force Act was amended after the 2008 Mumbai attacks to provide the force with a mandate to secure private enterprises? Source: Following the Mumbai attacks, the government had amended the CISF Act to expand the role of the force from protecting only government institutions to securing private firms as well

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Wayne Mixson

Created by Deepak G Goswami (talk). Self-nominated at 08:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

New enough to mainspace and long enough. QPQ present. No textual issues; the one paragraph that does not have an inline citation is a summary of its section, much like a lede, so it should be fine. The hook checks out to a source cited in the article—not the one linked above, but [1]—and is interesting (I've added a "with" for flow). @Deepak G Goswami: While I am granting a tick, there is a reference error that needs fixing, as the 2018 Rajya Sabha report does not have a corresponding entry in the bibliography, so you will want to fix that. Raymie (t • c) 22:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raymie, thanks for the review. I have added the report in the bibliography section, which I don't know how I missed.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Central Industrial Security Force Act/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 16:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to review this nomination. I notice that the nominator has not been active recently. I will post some initial feedback this week and will continue if someone responds to the feedback within a few days. Thanks to the nominator and others for the work on this entry so far. Larry Hockett (Talk) 16:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The Mukherjee Commission is introduced without much explanation. Better to briefly specify that this was a special commission appointed to investigate this specific incident. Then you can go into more detail in the body.
Done--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"force of watch and ward nature" - Just wondering whether this is a standard expression in Indian English. I haven't heard it in American English. Is there a wikilink that would be relevant here?
Done Watch and ward is commonly used in Indian English and especially in the parliament. Its use in American English has diminished, like several many old English words. I have linked it to security guard as this is the closest article I could find highlighting the meaning of the phrase.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background

This is not very easy to read because of the single paragraph. Maybe a new paragraph at "These developments ..." or the next sentence.
Done--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is just a single common word, "examination" probably doesn't need quotation marks.
Done
"strong objections were raised by the opposition parties" - What do you mean by the opposition parties? Just the members who objected? Seems redundant.
Unlike the US Congress, the Indian Parliament has more than one opposition party. "Strong objections were raised by the members of opposition parties" (changed version) means that members of many opposition parties were registering their objection to a particular clause.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amendments

The last sentence of the first paragraph reads a little funny; the first two clauses have a different structure than the last two. I think it might even be easier to break this up into more than one sentence.
Done--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1999: "credited in" - usually I see "credited to"
Done--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same sentence: "dictated by the subsection second" - second subsection?
Done--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to close this nomination for now, as there have been no edits here or to the article in the eleven days since the initial feedback was posted. With 573 articles waiting to be reviewed, it makes more sense to wait and nominate the entry again once there is an active editor to respond to feedback. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Hockett, thank you for taking up this review and providing your valuable feedback. Being a frontline worker during this ongoing pandemic, I was away from Wikipedia for too long and if it wasn't enough I spent many weeks in hospital fighting the infection. Now I am back after recuperation and would work on the article as per your suggestions.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak G Goswami - Thank you for addressing my initial concerns. Once a nomination is closed, the easiest way to proceed is to renominate it. I would consider reviewing the entry again, but another editor will likely beat me to it because I have a lot going on at the moment and I want to give your nomination the time it deserves. I haven't reviewed your references or checked for breadth of coverage, and those aspects can take quite a bit of time. Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]