- 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 Cielquiparle (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
India: The Modi Question
Created by Vanamonde93 (talk), D4R1U5 (talk), and 2409:40f3:2b:72d:8000:: (talk). Nominated by Vanamonde93 (talk) at 06:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/India: The Modi Question, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.
A few things need to be addressed
- "Let people see the fascist face ... the coming days." : Citation needed at the end of the quote.
- Characterization of the BJP as "Hindu-nationalist" needs a couple sources. The cited NYT article doesn't call it as such. Washington Post article does however and can be cited here
- "Commentators argued that the ban had drawn more attention ... known as the Streisand effect." The source mentions only one such commentator
- " Trinamool Congress leaders Derek O'Brien and Mahua Moitra ... criticized the move as censorship.[5]" [5] doesn't say anything of the sort
- The Guardian states that the documentary was criticized by "former judges, bureaucrats and prominent figures". Any reason it is not mentioned? This is important for NPOV and balanced presentation. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- @AhmadLX: Thanks for the review. Refs sometimes get lost in rapid-fire editing, so I appreciate the spot-check (or did you perhaps check all references?) I believe I have fixed the issues you mentioned. I'm most hesitant about the "300 judges" statement, as not even sources which cover it in more detail make reference to the contents of the documentary; they appear to be criticizing the principle of the thing. However, absent other sources challenging the statement, I've stuck it in the reception section for the moment, with a dedicated source. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't check all, but something like half of them. I usually do as many as reasonably possible in all my reviews (DYK, GA, FA).AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Overall: 
Hook not so "hooky" ;) Do you have other ideas @Vanamonde93:? I would have suggested a couple myself but then won't be able to approve one (at least that is what I understood from the policy). But I think Twitter/Youtube blocking the videos OR student arrests OR simply mentioning the ban with elaborating the content in a short sentence would make some interesting hooks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- I would think a documentary being banned somewhere it wasn't due to be shown is interesting! But here are two alternatives. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Then it should have been rephrased to highlight that fact, with something like "Despite" or "Even though". Would have made a really cool hook IMO. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- ALT2: * ... that more than a dozen students were arrested in connection with a planned screening of the BBC documentary India: The Modi Question?
