Template:Did you know nominations/Tarakeswar affair

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Harrison49 (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Tarakeswar affair

(

)

... that fish-knives inscribed with Elokeshi's name were sold after her decapitation with a fish-knife (pictured) by her husband – following her adulterous affair with a Hindu head-priest?

Comment: Article is till under construction. Will complete it on this weekend.
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dost Mohammad Khan, Nawab of BhopalCreated/expanded by Redtigerxyz (talk). Self nom at 18:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Intriguing! Creation history checked; length is fine; well-referenced to a mix of online and offline sources, all of which look reliable. In relation to the online sources, paraphrasing is not close. Ref [4] covers the "souvenir fish-knives" element of the hook. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing concerns. Example: "British-owned newspapers argued about the morals of Bengali society, the British ideals of justice and over the question of asserting more control on Hindu temples and organizations. Bengali newspapers followed the court trial on a day-to-day basis, reporting it verbatim and elaborating upon the responses of the European judges, the jury and Hindu lawyers as well as discussing the overall public reaction." vs "English-owned newspapers debated the morals of native society, British justice, and whether or not the government should embark on a more intrusive course of action vis-a-vis Hindu institutions. Bengali newspapers gave elaborate, often verbatim reports of trial proceedings and critically discussed the stance of European judges, Hindu lawyers, the jury, as well as public response to the events and trials." Nikkimaria (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Please check. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

'Fraid not. Further examples: "Elokeshi's aged father is shown to be manipulated by her young stepmother. Unable to satisfy his wife sexually, he resorts to giving gifts like jewellery for which he sells off his daughter to the mahant" vs "Elokeshi's father was an old man who had been cruelly manipulated by the young and greedy stepmother. Unable to satisfy her sexually, he promised to buy her jewellery instead. For this purpose he allegedly sold off his own daughter to the mohunt" and "they doubt her love for Nobin" vs "doubt her love for Nobin". Please read WP:Close paraphrasing and recheck all sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Working. Will revisit the references this weekend. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

How do I add "doubt her love for Nobin", without close paraphrasing and without not stating the fact? Reworded more of the article. Some words are retained as there also legal in nature. Please check. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"questioned her devotion to her husband", but more generally by reordering the section entirely. Suggest reading WP:Close paraphrasing for help with this. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Would "question her love for Nobin" suffice? Because devotion changes the meaning. 1 para of the source is transformed into 1 sentence. Please check for close paraphrasing. I may have missed something. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, still too close, but on the plus side that section is the only one that remains problematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Now good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)