Talk:Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

Just Received comments on the article. Our wikipedian Yaris678 has provided his positive feedback & suggested to trim the CERC regulations Portion. Moreover he called for converting the Tables into Paragraph format. i tried to justify the same at [|Wikipedia Feedback]. Pls provide your opinion for improving the article.

Review

Hello. I am here to review this new article. Find my review below:

I read through the entire article and found a couple Manual of Style problems. These include spacing after references and periods after references. You never put a space before you put a reference, and you always put a space after the reference. Also, you never put a period after the reference; it goes before the reference so it doesn't look like there's a huge gap between sentence and period. Also, I found several grammar errors. The & signs in the article should be changed to and instead. Another thing is, generally, the "see also" section should go just after the article and before the references, not right at the end after the references. I have a couple things to do first, but once those are done I'll work on some of these issues. Regards, The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 12:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Raptor, Thank you so much for stepping in & providing your assitance. I will be very happy to accept & implement all your comments. To say honestly i focused a lot on contents of the article rather than formatting. I will try to spend couple of hours only for formatting. I will put my best to improve the article.
Thanks once again Raptor!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raj6644 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and if there's anything I can do to help, just let me know. The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 13:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raptor. I worked a lot on improving article keeping in mind your as well as Chevy's Comments. I did copy editing especially carefully i have merged the objectives & obligations section. Added two more use full sections & many reliable references for more clarity. Worked on WP:MOS as well. I have a doubt. Who will review my article & who will rate my article. After posting it still it has not received any Class. Pls assist me in this regard. Raj6644 (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a part of any project that has to do with this article, but I think I could take a quick trip to WikiProject India and grab the talk page banner for it. The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 13:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. I can't rate the importance, though, since I don't know very much about India. I'll contact a WikiProject India member and ask them to rate this article's importance. The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 13:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion & for reviewing the article The Raptor. Little disappointed with the rating of the article. I was keep working from the date you gave your first comment & i have collected lot of critical informations & many reliable third part references. I have implemented every1's suggestion & i suppose that you might have not noticed recent development in the article. Now also i strive to bring more quality to the article. I agree & admire you as a moderator & you are more experienced in Wikipedia.but still If you inform what is the reason for low rating for such a informative article, i will be very happy to rectify the error & i will put my best to upgrade the quality of article. Raj6644 (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rated it C-class because there are still a couple issues that must be fixed. You must gather a few more references before B-class can be attained, plus there are still some grammar fixes that need to be done. You have done a great job at improving the article, and if you continue improving the article as you are, and if you add a few more sources, I'll bump it up to B-class. The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 15:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request, I am happy to review and offer my humble opinions. :) What I'm noticing first are punctuation errors which I will show below:

There is a necessity for separation in the short run, the two regulators should be merged eventually, as there are substantial synergies between them. should read "There is a necessity for separation in the short run; the two regulators should be merged eventually, as there are substantial synergies between them(note the semi-colon instead of a comma). 1998 for rationalization of electricity tariff, should read 1998 for rationalization of electricity tarriffs(plural) or ...of the elecricity tarriff. These are two examples. Punctuation errors such as these can deter from the overall credibility of an article. This is a very noble effort, and the article is well-researched, so the detail work (punctuation, etc) will serve to make it even stronger. Is English your second language? If so, you've done a remarkable job. I would say maybe give a draft of the article to someone for copy editing to find and correct those types of errors. If you like, I can give it a try. :) The only changes I would be making would be punctuation, etc., as I mentioned above. Best, Piano tech 11:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Piano, Thank you so much for providing your valuable suggestion. I'm feeling happy to see the words from you for my efforts. Yeah My First Language is Tamil. I did lot of work before posting it. Sure i will take all your words into consideration for improving the article. Meanwhile, i'm glad to invite you to copyedit my article. Thank you once again Pianotech !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raj6644 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome! Will be at work today, so will adjust some punctuation when I get home tonight. Piano tech 12:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a big improvement on the previous version I saw. Well done! One suggestion - I would put the "Important Regulations / Policy Framework by CERC" nearer the bottom, in a similar way to how you many articles on a writer put a "Publications" section near the bottom. It should be just above the "See also" section. See WP:FOOTERS. Yaris678 (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Central Electricity Regulatory Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]