Template:Did you know nominations/1981 Meenakshipuram conversion
- 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 Fuebaey (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
1981 Meenakshipuram conversion
edit- ... that around 800 Hindu Dalits of a village converted to Islam over caste discrimination in India in 1981?
5x expanded by Gfosankar (talk). Self nominated at 12:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC).
- COMMENTS =
This new iteration of a single sentence article is definitely new enough, a new "creation by rewrite", plus expanded enough. I make the length 1,861 characters, so plenty long enough. I make hook length 153 characters, so fine for that. I don't know enough about the subject to sharpen this hook by recommending an ALT1. My check for paraphrase/copyvios shows no problems. Although well written, the is a trifle stiff; I will give it a light copy-edit. However, the nominator seems to have erred in the QPQ reference. A valid QPQ is all that is needed for approval.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- COMMENTS =
- Georgejdorner, I'm not quite sure what's wrong with the QPQ supplied. Gfosankar did the initial review, and approved it. Yoninah subsequently felt that some copyediting was needed and the hook citation was not done properly (Gfosankar thought it had been); is this why you don't think it's a valid QPQ? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Referenced article does not show on QPQ detector.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Georgejdorner, I honestly don't understand what the issue is. If you click on the Template:Did you know nominations/Swami Kumaranand link, it takes you to a nomination template. On that template, it shows a review by Gfosankar. What does a "QPQ detector" matter when you have the actual template in front of you showing that? The only questions should be whether a review was done, and whether it adequately addressed the DYK criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Guess I have learned a lesson about the reliability of the QPQ check widget. Indeed, the template does show a valid QPQ, even if QPQ check doesn't. GTG, with apologies for the holdup.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
