Template:Did you know nominations/Swami Chakrapani

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Swami Chakrapani

(
)

Created by Harshil169 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC).

  • Hooks are okay and cited, although the first ones use of Dawood Ibrahim twice seems a bit redundant. Age of the article is good. However the article is templated for copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. In addition for a biographical article, very little basic information (birth date, birth place, education, ect.) is present in the article, in fact the article seems to solely deal with the controversies that Chakrapani has been involved with rather than Chakrapani himself. The lead section of the article presents information such as Dawood Ibrahim and fake baba which, although clarified later on in the article, would probably be unfamiliar and confusing to many DYK readers who are not acquainted with the history and terms used in India. This is a good start but the article needs some tiding up to do before I would feel confident okaying it for the DYK section in the main page. Inter&anthro (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment my apology, I forgot to mention that at the time of this edit the nominator has not listed any other DYK that they have reviewed. As this is not Harshil169's first DYK per WP:QPQ I think they need to review another unrelated DYK for this one to be considered. There are some criteria where WP:QPQ does not apply, either way I encourage to nominator to look into it. Inter&anthro (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 Comment: @Inter&anthro: this is my first DYK nomination. I don’t know much about DYK. Please guide me.— Harshil want to talk? 11:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@Harshil169: I'm pretty sure Weeping Jesus statue in Mumbai, which is actually on the DYK right now, was started by you. However if you did not nominate it, than you are correct and WP:QPQ will not apply for your first nomination. From here on after though it is expected that you review a least one nomination for every one of your new nominations. It is a policy to ensure editors contribute to the broader DYK project than just nominating their own article again and again, that's all. Inter&anthro (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@Inter&anthro: No no. It was started by DBigXray. You can check the talk page. — Harshil want to talk? 12:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
(responding to ping) Good Lord ! Nether the Nominator @Harshil169: nor the reviewer @Inter&anthro: felt it necessary to read WP:QPQ despite linking it thrice on this page. Had any of you actually read that, then you would have known that nominators with less than 5 DYKs are QPQ exempt. And Harshil here has only 1 DYK credit. DBigXrayᗙ 15:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I had always been told after your first nomination you were expected to review and another editor's nomination hence forth. For your information I DID read WP:QPQ, hence why I said "There are some criteria where WP:QPQ does not apply, either way I encourage to nominator to look into it" although I wasn't sure what constituted a point for DYK. No worries though, I've struck out the original comment. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Inter&anthro FWIW, On the DYK toolbox on the top right there is a link for QPQ Check, reviewers are expected to make use of that to check if QPQ is needed or exempt. If you think about it, there is a common sense reason why noobs should not be asked to review DYKs. Take the example of Harshil above, he clearly said "I Dont know much about DYK", so it is not fair to force and ask someone who lacks experience, to do something that he might not be able do properly. After 5 DYKs a reasonable experience comes which is why community has added a 5 DYK rule for QPQ. If someone asked Inter&anthro then it was not per the existing consensus. There isnt really much to do about DYKs but whatever there is to do should be done with utmost sincerity. (we do not want COPYVIOs or Fringe theories or AfD worthy pages on the mainpage.) In conclusion, the miss, where the reviewer failed to do a QPQ check using the tool above, must not be repeated. cheers. DBigXrayᗙ 16:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @DBigXray: my apology about that, I promise it won't happen again, I'll keep WP:QPQ in mind next time I review a DYK, @Harshil169: you can ignore my second comment, I've struck it out, I'm sorry about the confusion it caused, it was my mistake not yours. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Cool. @Harshil169: next time when you are nominating a DYK, remember to mention "QPQ Exempt" in the parameter "Reviewed", (instead of leaving it blank) until you are QPQ eligible. This will help to avoid the confusion like above. After 5 DYKs it will be expected that on the parameter "reviewed" you will add the link to the DYK page that you have reviewed.DBigXrayᗙ 06:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment: @Inter&anthro: CE- Green tickY
    Lead fixes - Green tickY
    Hook change - Green tickY removed name which was appearing twice
    Biography- Red XN Not all details are controversial here and biographical details are not available in RS.
* The issues outlined above have largely been fixed by Harshill169. It would be nice if some more biographical information could be added since this is a BLP article, but given the lack of reliable sources it is understandable. I've added a couple categories. Sources look good and reliable. No further issues that I can notice here regarding DYK eligibility. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The article needs a copyedit. Please apply at WP:GOCE. Yoninah (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • IIRC, Dawood ain't currently in the NIA Most-Wanted list ...... ∯WBGconverse 17:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Fair but we can use the fact that he is a UNSC designated terrorist. See this list (QDi-135) and this news-piece by Dawn. Need to think a it esp. about whether it will flout WP:LABEL .... ∯WBGconverse 18:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Alt2a:- ... that Swami Chakrapani wanted to convert the eatery and hotel of Dawood Ibrahim, a UNSC sanctioned criminal, into public toilets? is my choice but I am not confident enough. @Passer-by reviewers:- Opinions, please. ∯WBGconverse 16:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Winged Blades of Godric: thanks for taking this on, but the article (and hook) has outstanding grammatical issues that must be addressed before this passes. Sentences like these need more work: Chakrapani claimed that he wanted to turn car into an ambulance but after receiving threats from D-Company, had decided to set the car on fire; he wished of utilizing the wreckage in the construction of a toilet. The lead must be rewritten in a far less POV manner—how can we call him a saint in Wikipedia's voice? All in all, a strong case for his notability has not been made; the article sounds like a shouting match between him and people who oppose him. Yoninah (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry about my initial review, I missed a lot of key aspects. I've struck out my tick, I'll re-visit it in a little bit with a clear mind. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT3: ... that Swami Chakrapani proposed converting a hotel into a public toilet as it had been owned by a high ranking criminal? ~ R.T.G 23:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Reviewer needed to recheck article and latest ALT hooks. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • For hooks alt2 and ALT3 the source given only mentions the eatery is proposed to become a public toilet. Although a hotel will be auctioned it does not say what will happen to that. So I think we need yet another hook on the topic where mention of the hotel is omitted and eatery is there. But the hooks are interesting! I have not checked the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Harshil169, it's been over a week; we really need a response from you here, and hopefully a new hook proposal as well given the sourcing issues with including the hotel in the hooks. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I’m pinging @Winged Blades of Godric: for this. I’ve dropped the stick. He’s handling alt hooks. Regards,— Harshil want to talk? 17:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I just took a look into the hotel/eatery, to see whether Chakrapani actually followed through since this was back in 2017, and it turns out that someone else won the auction for the property; indeed, Chakrapani didn't even attend the auction. I have struck the hooks that mention the hotel/eatery; we shouldn't be giving prominence to a publicity stunt that never went anywhere, and the article needs to be updated to reflect what actually occurred. Perhaps a hook could be constructed around the his Z category security, which appears to be a major amount of security. Has there been any further news on the four young men arrested for plotting to kill Chakrapani in 2016? Were they convicted? Released? Harshil169, I think it's up to you to update the article with any further information on this matter, and to reflect the actual result of the auction, or perhaps to omit it entirely, since there is no evidence that he actually did bid on it, or that anyone bid on his behalf. Note to all: this is the oldest DYK nomination, and in one week, the article will be three months past its creation date, and nearly that since its nomination. We need significant progress soon; if January 19 comes and goes without any, it will probably be time to mark this for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, thanks for your excellent work and I am not seeing any scope for a hook. Close, from me. ∯WBGconverse 14:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Waiting for a response from Harshil169 on the proposal to close. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Swami_Chakrapani&oldid=1018845513"