Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Bhogeshwari Phukanani

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: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Bhogeswari Phukanani

[edit]
(
)

Created by Fitindia (talk). Self-nominated at 19:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC).

Long enough (over 1,500 words), new enough (DYK? submitted on the same day that this article was created), QPQ done (Sophia (robot)), no obvious copyright violation, and excellent hook. Thus, it looks like this DYK? nomination is now good to go!
However, if you can find a picture for this article, that would be absolutely wonderful. Futurist110 (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The hook has a grammatical issue, and the article has significant prose problems and could use a good copyedit—it cannot be approved for the main page until these are dealt with. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
BlueMoonset I have changed the hook a bit. Please do have a look thank you.  FITINDIA  15:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Fitindia, in addition to the prose issues I mentioned above, the series of events given in the article do not seem to agree with your sources—and the sources do not agree with each other on significant details leading up to her death. (Also, the most common spelling of her name seems to be "Bhogeswari", not "Bhogeshwari" as in the article title.) I've posted what I've found on the article's talk page. Before we get back to the hook, which isn't there yet, there needs to be significant work done to the article first. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset Please give me a few days will re-write the article and address the issues which were bought up on the article talk page. Thank you  FITINDIA  06:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Fitindia, please take the time you need. A week or even two, should you need that much time, is fine, and if you need longer, by all means ask for more time. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset I have rewritten parts of it. Please do have a look. Thank you  FITINDIA  09:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll try to look at it tonight; for now, I have updated the template to reflect the article's move to Bhogeswari Phukanani. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi @BlueMoonset: could you please have a look. Thank you 15:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I would really like to get another experienced editor who has dealt with conflicting sources in the past to take a look at this. The two sources—the Pathak book published by Mittal and the Singh article from Assam Times—are quite different in what they say happened when Bhogeswari died, and I feel uncomfortable about the revisions dropping most of the former in favor of the latter, especially as I don't know which is likely to be most reliable. I honestly don't know what is best when sources disagree, but I suspect it may involve mentioning both possibilities. As matters stand now, I can't approve this, and I'm really not sure how to proceed. Perhaps a post to the DYK talk page (WT:DYK) would be the best course. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi @BlueMoonset: what if we remove the part how she died? will that work. FITINDIA 09:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Fitindia, I don't think the article would be long enough for DYK without that section, and without the general circumstances of her death, you lose the hook as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Fitindia, unless there is a good reason for preferring one account over the other, I think both accounts of her death should be in the article. This shouldn't be too difficult—language to the effect of "There are at least two account's of how Phukanani died. According to one, ... According to another, ..." should do the trick.
Equally covering both accounts is important for a number of reasons. First, for someone like Phukanani, who is "notable" because of her death, extra efforts should be made to ensure that the notable event is covered as well as possible. Second, where the reliability of the sources isn't certain—and in such a politically charged issue, where different accounts can have different implications—including both accounts implicitly tells the reader that some facts are still in dispute. And third, the fact that there are at least two accounts of Phukanani's is, in a way, part of her story, and therefore an article on her would not be complete without both. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Fitindia, I asked Usernameunique to take a look at the article because I didn't think it could be run at DYK as it was, but no one had responded to the "review again" icon. What happens next is up to you: if you can update the article so it adequately covers the varying accounts of her death, then it could be run. Otherwise, I don't see how it can be. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, Fitindia has added the two accounts, and I have tidied them up. How does it look to you now? --Usernameunique (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Usernameunique, I'll try to review the various sources over the next day or two. I don't trust my memory of them, which seems to think that there's something not quite right in the combined account. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: could you please have a look if you get the time. Thank you :) . FITINDIA 10:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Fitindia, I have to apologize; I haven't been able to review the sources, and doing so won't be possible for at least another week. Thank you for your patience; I will get back to this. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: No worries please take as much time as you need. Thank you :) FITINDIA 08:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Fitindia, Usernameunique, I have finally been able to find the time to sit down and review the two main sources along with the article text, and it did seem to me that the updated article was not correctly reflecting the sources in a number of places. Since it has taken me so long to check, I decided it was only fair for me to make the revisions myself, which I have done. At this point, it needs someone else to review it, because I can't be sure I've caught everything and I'm too involved at this point. I think you are too involved as well, Usernameunique, so I'm going to add this to the list of the oldest nominations needing a review in the hopes that someone will give this a good going over. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

BlueMoonset thank you for updating the article. FITINDIA 19:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

(Pinging Fitindia and BlueMoonset) It's not clear to me where she was born. The article says "Nagaon district Berhampur," which implies that Nagaon is within Berhampur. Singh says that she was a resident but not that she was born there. Pathak (who spells Phukanani's name three different ways in a row and refers to women as cloths) says she was born "in the Barhampur area of Nagoan District." Google Maps, meanwhile, shows no Berhampur in Nagaon, but there is a Barhampur near the city of Nagaon. There's a need to resolve this. I suspect "Barhampur, Nagaon district" would do the job, but for fear of becoming yet another over-involved reviewer I won't do it.

The two newspaper sources aren't fully cited; both have publication dates that should be given. You could also make the names of the papers wikilinks (The Assam Tribune and The Telegraph (Calcutta)), but that's optional. I'd question the validity of the Assam Tribune source, since it's not specified that it's named after this article's subject, but I won't push that. I made three minor changes to the article text to improve readability, so it's just the location and referencing I'd wait for before I pass this.

As to the hook, I'd change it to either "... that housewife Bhogeswari Phukanani played..." or "... that a housewife, Bhogeswari Phukanani, played..." because I'm very pedantic about these things. ~ Maltrópa loquace 18:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Maltrópa: I have removed the place of birth and just shown the district she was born in, also have corrected the hook as mentioned. Please do have a look. Thank you FITINDIA 06:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Alright, that's me satisfied. Consider this one approved! ~ Maltrópa loquace 09:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Bhogeshwari_Phukanani&oldid=1018853737"