The following discussion 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 Alex ShihTalk 16:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for editing an archived page. :) While I appreciate Titodutta's generosity here, I have to make absolutely clear that I did not create this page and have not contributed substantially to it. All I did was move it. I am uncomfortable being credited with work I do not deserve. For that reason, I decline. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for editing this archived page from me too, but I have to say that all I did was add a notice to the temporary page. I appreciate the thought, but I shouldn't receive any credit for this DYK. Voceditenore (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
. Length, date and hokk reference are fine. No copy vio. Good to go.--Nvvchar. 01:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I have pulled this one from prep 1 as I think the hook is substandard - politicians lay foundation stones of new buildings all the time, it's a commonplace occurrence. IMO a new hook should be found. Gatoclass (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
A hook based on the "industry-academia linkage system" mentioned in the article would be one possible alt, though I haven't checked the sources for that statement in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio/paraphrasing issues that are not detected on the tools here, for whatever reason:
1) Article:"In early 2005 the State Government of Chhattisgarh decided to establish the University to ensure high-quality, systematic and effective education in the state related to engineering and technology subjects. The relevant act was passed in the Chhattisgarh state assembly on 21 January 2005. The foundation stone of the institution was laid by Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh on 30 April 2005"
Ref 1 source: "The state government established the CSVTU through an Act passed by the Chhattisgarh assembly on January 21, 2005 to ensure systematic, efficient and quality education in engineering and technological subjects. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh laid the foundation stone of the university on April 30, 2005"
2)Article: "The University reserves 50 percent seats in postgraduate studies in courses like steel technique and material handling for the employees and children of the employees of Steel Authority of India"
Ref 1 source:"The state government would reserve 50 percent of the seats in postgraduate studies in certain courses such as steel technique and material handling for SAIL employees while a few seats would be reserved for SAIL employees' children in other courses. IANS"
The consensus there is that the article does indeed contain close paraphrasing that needs to be dealt with. Can you please fix it, and propose another hook? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Rewriting of those two sentences has been attempted.
Is there some way it can be confirmed that this is a case of MIRROR rather than copyvio? Gatoclass (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, a closer look at the article makes it pretty obvious it's a mirror. I'll run another check on this nomination next time I log on. Gatoclass (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
You can do these 1) click on "Read more" and see the full article. That's Wikipedia format. They have copied our whole article including references 2) See full article, right click>> View page source, find the word "Wikipedia", You'll get clues that content has been taken from Wikipedia. --Tito☸Dutta 17:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I have rewritten this article so it needs a new review. I have basically removed some redundant content, given it a copyedit and done my best to avoid close paraphrasing; however, there is a limit to the amount of changes that can be made when the sources contain only basic information. Per Creative expression and WP:LIMITED, facts cannot be copyrighted, only originality of expression, and I see little in the sources that could be described as original expression - these are all just basic facts and I see little reason why those facts cannot simply be duplicated here. Gatoclass (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
All issues seem to have been dealt with. Everything looks good to go. --Rushton2010 (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)