Template:Did you know nominations/Patnagarh bombing

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Patnagarh bombing

(

)

~~... that a fatal parcel bomb in Orissa led to an arrest after a suspect, a disgruntled colleague of the groom's mother, allegedly sent an anonymous letter to the police months after the bombing?~~
- ALT1:... that a fatal bombing in Orissa where the parcel bomb looked like a wedding gift is being made into a film?
- ALT2:... that an arrest of a suspect, a disgruntled colleague of the groom's mother, occurred after he allegedly sent an anonymous letter to the police months after a fatal parcel bomb in Orissa?

Reviewed: Juliet Appiah

Created by Vanguard10 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC).

CopyVio shows one article with higher percentage due, I believe, because a few quotes from the people involved are in the article.

Hook 1 citations: that a fatal* parcel bomb in Orissa led to an arrest* after a suspect*, a disgruntled colleague of the groom's mother*, allegedly sent an anonymous* letter to the police months after the bombing*? all facts noted by * are in citation 3 from the BBC.

Hook ALT1 citations: that a fatal bombing in Orissa that looked like a wedding gift (3) is being made into a film (6)? Citation 3, BBC. Citation 6, Hindustan Times.

I believe Hook ALT2 has the best grammar.

Comment: The topic needs to be bolded, and I would not pipe it, certainly not to just "parcel bomb" because that would be misleading, as about parcel bomb in general. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you and fixed. Vanguard10 (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, but I bolded "comment" to express that's only a comment, - I don't need a qpq right now and am weeks behind with a FAC, sorry --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

In need of DYK review. Gerda simply made a comment and is not doing a review. Thank you fellow Wikipedians. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Start review:

New enough and long enough. It needs more work to be "within policy". You need inline citation at least per paragraph, and the prose need to be written to be in encyclopedia style. The current style talks into too much minute detail, which might be appropriate for a newspaper article, but not here. Focus on what happened as well as why it's notable, other details—e.g. who's who, sequence of events—should only be covered in proportion to its significance to describing the bombing. See WP:NOTNEWS. HaEr48 (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Fixed citations, removed some minute detail, fixed here and there. Thank you for starting the review. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Vanguard10: I'm afraid, I still can't see myself approving this article at the current state. It still reads very much like a news report, with detailed diary-style prose with meandering storyline. Think of it this way, if 20 years from now someone wants to consult an encyclopedia about this event, what do you think they'd like to see? It's not some diary or minutely detailed story, but a systematic and to the point description of the event. Some specific suggestion to help things:

Don't start with "Five days after marriage, ..." which is not directly related to the bombing, start with the bombing itself and then explain the important events preceding it. See 2008 Times Square bombing or YouTube headquarters shooting, for example.
details such as "having return address of a person... ", "Soumya's last remark was ....", "his fater was teaching zoology", etc. have no bearing to the event itself and should be removed.
Don't write in diary or news report style, but use the one that you see in the rest of Wikipedia. Don't mix explainign the background of the victims and relating the events, but instead organize them into different sections. It's not necessary to explain everything in a chronological order. See Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward for example of organizing information into sections.
If you feel that some details are relevant in the article, better explain the relevance (or you could also lose them). For example, I don't understand the relevance of "police received a peculiar letter" and "hey had misread the name of the package sender".

Hope this helps. HaEr48 (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your ideas. I have made revisions. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for updating the article. The article is now generally within policy, with appropriate citation and written in appropriate tone for Wikipedia. No copyvio issue found. I choose ALT1 hook, which is mentioned and cited in the article. Good to go now. I checked your QPQ and looks like the review has issues because the hook is eventually pulled, but it doesn't matter because it's less than your fifth DYK nomination. Next time please be careful when reviewing. HaEr48 (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to promote this, but the hook is not sharp. What do you think about:
ALT3: ... that a newlywed man was killed and his wife seriously injured in February after opening a parcel bomb that looked like a wedding gift?

I also added information from the sources to flesh out the article. Yoninah (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Your hook (I renamed it ALT3, as we already had ALT1 above) sounds fine to me. Restoring the tick. HaEr48 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

HaEr48 I realize that the source says it was the groom who thought it looked like a wedding gift, not that it did look like a wedding gift. I would like to tweak the hook as follows:
ALT4: ... that a newlywed man was killed and his wife seriously injured in February after he opened a parcel bomb that he thought was a wedding gift? Yoninah (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

* @Yoninah: Sources also describe it as "wedding gift" or "wedding gift bomb", e.g. BBC. Both ALT3 and ALT4 are fine IMO. I'm certainly OK if you prefer ALT4 to be extra careful. HaEr48 (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I also prefer ALT3 as more hooky. Leaving it to promoter to decide. Yoninah (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)