Jump to content


Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeISRO was a Natural sciences 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
October 28, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
July 4, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
June 20, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2023 (2)[edit]

According to ISRO's website "ISRO was previously the Indian National Committee for Space Research (INCOSPAR), set up by the Government of India in 1962, as envisioned by Dr. Vikram A Sarabhai". Please remove reference to INCOSPAR being estabilshed under Jawaharlal Nehru as it may have been during the time of Pt. Nehru but was the vision of Dr. Sarabhai. This institution of national importance and the real people, the pioneering scientists, behind it must be recognised. Tyhwyel (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My request is to change - "ISRO was previously the Indian National Committee for Space Research(INCOSPAR), set up under Jawaharlal Nehru in 1962 recognising the need for space research." to "ISRO was previously the Indian National Committee for Space Research(INCOSPAR), set up by the Government of India in 1962 recognising the need for space research, as envisioned by Dr. Vikram A Sarabhai.[1]" Tyhwyel (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About citations removal (August 2023)[edit]

I have removed some duplicate sources (per WP:CITEKILL) in one of my edits. I forgot to mention it in my edit summary so now I'm leaving the notice here. If anyone has any kind of query related to it, disscus it right here! Thank you. — 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 💬 07:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit as you removed the content from the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the whole body. TheWikiholic (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your edits back per MOS:LEADLENGTH, the previous version of lead was not a summary, they were literally reflecting the history section (word by word). Also avoid assumptions while summarising your edits. Happy editing. — 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 💬 03:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:NOTREPOSITORY. — 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 💬 03:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever you get some time, read all three of them thoroughly (all of them are extremely important). Have a good time! — 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 💬 03:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aman.kumar.goel: This article's lead is literally a copy of its history section, and that's why I removed it (per MOS:LEADLENGTH) but you reverted my edist stating "No, can't remove this." Would you like to explain 'why this cannot be removed?' — 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 💬 11:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark, Kautilya3, Vanamonde93, Can you please look into this edit by Akshadev? With this edit, he has unilaterally removed a huge chunk of a long-standing stable version from the lead with an edit summary of “Removed content that is already available in the history section.” I have reverted and left a comment here because WP:Lead and WP:Due clearly say that the lead of the article should summarise what the body covers. But Akshadev reverted my edit again with an edit summary: “WP:LEAD does not suggest us to copy-paste every single detail as a summary in an article’s lede.” I have reverted his edit again because the lead was not a copy/paste of the body and asked him to not make any unilateral changes as the lead was stable for a long time and to obtain consensus on the talk page. Akshay has reverted this again by citing MOS:LEADLENGTH. While I agree that the lead needs some copy editing, there are still many FA and FL articles with bigger leads with more readable prose than this (694 words). I think this is an attempt to remove Nehru’s name from the lead as you can see here. This was removed once Akshadev removed this part from the article.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheWikiholic: I'd only ask you to stay civil and avoid false assumptions. — 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 💬 05:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should continue to have the essential details. The summary of its history is important for being mentioned on the lead because it is impossible to imagine the existence of this organization without occurrence of those mentioned events. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks for letting me know. — 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 💬 12:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]