Created/expanded by Presearch (talk). Self nom at 20:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The article is new and long enough (3083 characters), properly sourced, hook meets criteria and the image is in public domain. The QPQ is problematic, I don't see the nominator's review in the linked DYK template. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 15:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing! Yes, a reasonable question wrt the QPQ. It was done on my behalf by User:Titodutta. He offered to do it HERE (DIFF) Then I asked him how it should be recorded HERE (DIFF) He advised HERE (DIFF) to explain this setup if asked, rather than explain it initially, as I had done HERE. So, that is the situation. As I type, this is the only DYK nom template that links to the QPQ DYK nom template(pages that cite) or the QPQ article itself(templates that cite) I saw no DYK guidelines or rules prohibiting one editor doing a QPQ on another's behalf. So while I would have preferred to note this directly up-front, this seems adequate to me.
So now what? Do you view this as adequate? Is the hook now ready to go? Thanks again for having reviewed this. -- Presearch (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
If Tito has consented for his review to be used as a QPQ here, then it's not an issue. I can't access source The story of the Calcutta theatres, 1753-1980 through GBooks, so I'm taking it on AGF. This nomination is good to go. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 17:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I do! We have been doing some works on Ramakrishna Vivekananda and this QPQ was a part of it! --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Just so that there is no confusion regarding this, I think this nomination is good to go. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 04:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)