- 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 Yoninah (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Aparna Rao
- ... that Aparna Rao, an anthropologist, spoke more than seven languages? Source: "It was this immense talent for learning languages which enabled Aparna to master, not only her mother-tongues Bengali, Hindi and English, but also French, Farsi, Urdu, Romanes and some vernacular languages of northern India" [1].
- ALT1:... that Aparna Rao, an anthropologist, was a member of the Société Asiatique? Source: "Aparna Rao war in zahlreichen internationalen akademischen Institutionen enga giert, so unter anderem als Mitglied der Societe Asiatique in Paris, al" (poor english translation: "Aparna Rao was involved in numerous international academic institutions, including as a member of the Societe Asiatique in Paris") [2].
- ALT2:... that Aparna Rao, an anthropologist, studied the impact of the Kashmir conflict on the environment? Source: "They collaborated as well in research and writing about the Bakkarwal of jammu and Kashmir, the Kashmir conflict's devastating effect on lives and environment, and many other subjects." (they referring to Rao and her husband). [3]
- Reviewed: first DYK nomination, so not required
- Comment: Can provide access to paywalled sources via email upon request. This is my first nomination so please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong.
Created by Мастер Шторм (talk). Nominated by Sam-2727 (talk) at 15:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC).
The original GA review is within the timeline for this nomination to pass. However, the GA review itself was followed by a large number of edits made, there is currently a neutrality tag on the article, and the GA review was conducted by a user who's now known to be a sockpuppet. The review is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations § Cirt/Right cite GA reviews which may result in removal of the article's GA status at this time. I don't think the article's primary author/improver, nor the nominator here, are at fault nor acting at bad faith, but I don't feel comfortable continuing this review and even considering passing the article when the triggering event is in question. There are two possible ways this can move forward: the article remains a GA (either by consensus that it can, or by someone else "accepting responsibility" for the current GA review) and I will return to re-evaluate the DYK criteria in full; or the article's GA status is either revoked or put back on hold, in which case I will fail this DYK nomination with no prejudice towards a renomination if/when the article becomes a GA again. For this time, I will leave this nomination here for now, and I'll be watching for a resolution to the GA question - after which I will return to close out this review. Pinging User:Мастер Шторм and User:Sam-2727. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Berchanhimez, Thanks for the comment, I think this is a good way to move forward with the nomination. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- I also agree with this Berchanhimez. Sam-2727, please note that in the article, I have made this and this change. However, it would be fine with me if you would like to reinstate the replaced source also and keep both of them. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
This nomination is a month old. What is going on with the review? The GA was done by a sockpuppet and there is a neutrality tag on the article. Has a request for a GA reassessment been submitted? Please advise. Yoninah (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yoninah, I have just queried Aircorn on the GA review page, since they seem to have looked at the original review, and are also involved on the reassessment side of things as well. Frankly, given that this is a sockpuppet review, if there is a problem, a reassessment shouldn't be done, but rather the listing be reversed and the original review reopened and taken over by a competent reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry for my absence, I've been hardly able to peek at Wikipedia recently and should've been back to follow up on this long ago. I support this nomination being discounted fully - if the GA holds, then the nominators of the GA should be permitted an exception from the 7 day rule on a new nomination. If it doesn't, then the 7 day period is moot and can be re-evaluated if/when it passes a proper GA review. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- My opinion is to let the GA stand. If anything a review from a sockpuppet of an experienced GA reviewer is better than a new reviewer who doesn't understand the criteria. I see no indication that CIRTs issuers were with the GA process. It seems unfair to punish good faith nominators because another editor sockpuppets. I don't really get involved in DYK so won't comment on how it is handled here. AIRcorn (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yoninah, I have just queried Aircorn on the GA review page, since they seem to have looked at the original review, and are also involved on the reassessment side of things as well. Frankly, given that this is a sockpuppet review, if there is a problem, a reassessment shouldn't be done, but rather the listing be reversed and the original review reopened and taken over by a competent reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, ready for full review. Yoninah (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Reviewing... Flibirigit (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- ? - Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: None required. |
Overall: 
Article was nominated for DYK within seven days of being promoted to GA status. The rest of my review focuses on the present state of the article. Length is adequate. Article is neutral in tone. No plagiarism issues detected. Image of Rao is appropriately licensed as fair use. QPQ is not required since the nominator has no DYK credits yet. Article has minor sourcing issues with quotes. In the sections "Research" and "Written work", there are multiple terms and phrases in quotation marks. There needs to be a citation directly at the end of any sentence with contains a quote. ALT0 and ALT1 are marginally interesting, but ALT2 is the much more interesting hook. The first two hooks can be verified on JSTOR for those who have access, and ALT2 is verified online. Overall, the current version of the article is in good shape and should pass DYK without much effort. Flibirigit (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Flibirigit, thanks for the review. I'm addressing the quotation issues now. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, please comment here when you are ready. Flibirigit (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have now reviewed the article. Most of the time, I removed the quotes and paraphrased because it made more sense and read less-awkward. I have added a direct source at the end of the sentence, as you request, in other cases. Sam-2727 (talk) 06:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
The article now meets all requirements for sourcing and other DYK criteria. Flibirigit (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have now reviewed the article. Most of the time, I removed the quotes and paraphrased because it made more sense and read less-awkward. I have added a direct source at the end of the sentence, as you request, in other cases. Sam-2727 (talk) 06:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, please comment here when you are ready. Flibirigit (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
