Template:Did you know nominations/Madhavpura Mercantile Cooperative Bank

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) 12:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Madhavpura Mercantile Cooperative Bank[edit]

(

)

... that in June 2013, 930 cases filed by or against Madhavpura Mercantile Cooperative Bank were pending in Indian courts?

Reviewed: Tammineni Veerabhadram

Created by Skr15081997 (talk). Self nominated at 08:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC).

Unlinking India. Edwardx (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

New enough (for 22 May) and long enough. QPQ OK. Hook checks out online with citation #18. No problems with disambig links or with external links. Article is written in objective language with neutral tone. Issues: (1) In the Aftermath section, two paragraphs and a blockquote do not have citations at the end. Please put them in place at the ends of these blocks of texts for clarity, even if the citations already appear elsewhere. (2) Citations #1 to #8 checked (using dup detector tool) for sources of copyvio. One instance of copyvio or close paraphrasing found with source being citation #8 as follows:
"bank filed 225 cases against defaulters in 71 of these cases charge sheets were filed by investigating agencies like cbi and cid if the defaulters agreed to pay" ... "exposed mmcb filed 225 cases against defaulters however in 71 cases charge sheets were filed by investigating agencies defaulters paid debt in some cases so legal action against"
I did not check external links for citations #9 to #33. Please correct the above close paraphrasing/copyvio, and check that you have not copied anything from the remaining citations without acknowledgement. If issues (1) and (2) can be resolved, then this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Storye book, citations have been added and the sentences have been rephrased. I hope now it's all OK.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your revision. (1) There are still two paragraphs without citations at the end - in the history section and the cancellation of licence section. Forgive me for being insistent, but since this is serious stuff about big business we cannot cut corners here. (OK, big business doesn't have greater rights than everyone else, but it does have bigger and greedier lawyers than everyone else.) (2) Thank you for correcting the copyvio. If you can resolve item 1, then this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Storye book, I have added citations. I hope this time you will put a tick.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Skr15081997, all issues resolved. And here's your tick (at last!) --Storye book (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)