Template:Did you know nominations/John Palocaren

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

John Palocaren[edit]

  • Reviewed: Quasi-opportunistic supercomputing (DIFF1, DIFF2, DIFF3, done on 27 July 2011, but not previously cited when submitting a DYK)
  • Comment: The hook's claims are verifiable online - the former students via their writings (Easwaran and Namboodiripad) or via an article (currently ref #3) in The Hindu from 8 Sep, 2011 (Menon, Alappatt, and Namboodiripad); and the claim about first freely elected communist govt via online journal article (currently ref #12) in Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars.

Created/expanded by Presearch (talk). Self nom at 00:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hook review for ALT1
Format Citation Neutrality Interest
Crisco 1492 (talk) Crisco 1492 (talk) Crisco 1492 (talk) Crisco 1492 (talk)

Article review
Length Newness Adequate
Neutrality Plagiarism
Crisco 1492 (talk) Crisco 1492 (talk) Crisco 1492 (talk) Crisco 1492 (talk) Fine Crisco 1492 (talk)

I now prefer ALT1 (above) to my original hook because I think it has a better balance of former students - plus, all 3 have Wikipedia articles. -- Presearch (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I also prefer alt 1. However, I have concerns with the article length and neutrality. The comments by students seem out of place and non-neutral, and if they were cut then the article would be too short. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing the hook. I have tried to give WP:DUE (proportional) coverage to what has been published about Palocaren. And those comments by students are what I found (there were also several additional anecdotes by Easwaran, but I didn't want to give his views undue coverage). I think that the article adequately represents the material (if not, please fix it!). The fact that these descriptions of Palocaren are quite positive does not seem surprising -- it's not every educator who is still being celebrated more than 60 years after he died. And these recollections are informative -- they give a sense of who he was, and why he left a strong impression (Note: there are also unattributed descriptions of what Palocaren did that appeared in the recent newspaper articles that were cited, but those are a unclear about whether they were repeating things that were said at the birth celebration, or whether they obtained their material from elsewhere, so I didn't cite them... but someone else is welcome to try to find an appropriate way to cite that material... again, it would be positive). A WP biographical article should reflect (in due proportional) what people report about a person, and I believe the article is fully in conformity with WP:MOS in this regard - and if not, I will support/contribute to efforts to fix it. So now what? Have I persuaded you? Or should another opinion be solicited? Many thanks for your efforts in reviewing. Best regards -- Presearch (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg I'm still rather iffy, but I guess it's good enough for DYK. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)