Talk:India: Difference between revisions

(→‎FA criteria: my take)
:::::::Perhaps that image should be in the health section but the caption looks ok to me. It links the image (immunizations) with the eradication of polio (presumably due to immunization). I scrolled down a bit and saw the St. Thomas church picture with the, imo pertinent, addition about the first arrival of Christians in India and that makes sense too. I like brevity in general but we don't want to toss the baby out. Of course, the immunization caption could convey the same information with greater brevity - e.g., ''Immunization workers in 2006. In 2009, the World Health Organization declared India to be polio-free.[316]'' - but the prosaic element is lost. We do want our prose to be engaging, even in image captions. --[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 19:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
{{od}}I have not written the following sections or subsections: 5, 6, 7, 7.1, 7.2 (?), 8 (?), 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.6. Of these, 9.1 and 9.2 are the most easily rewritten, especially with the expert knowledge of {{u|Johnbod}} I would greatly welcome that if he has the time. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 19:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
:Obviously, I prefer longer captions. I was happy with some early edits by an editor whose name I am forgetting but whom I thanked because he had done away with nonessentials (of prose and content). However, when in the throes of a mad rush we push ellipses to the limits of natural language, we do a disservice to people who are unfamiliar with the subject topic, who are looking for the occasional respite from the world of bare facts. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 19:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)