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 PFHLai (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Created by Kmzayeem (talk). Self nominated at 16:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC).
Hook cited. New enough. Long enough. Good to go! What an amazing kid! Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
As the sources make clear, he is reportedly going to be appearing in the Guinness book, but he hasn't yet, and nothing comes up using the Guinness website's Search function. This is prospective, not actual, and WP:CRYSTAL prohibits saying it has already happened: sometimes things that are reported as happening in the future never come to pass. Both the article and the hook need to be adjusted to reflect this as something that it has been reported will be happening (something like "is set to be listed as", perhaps); for now, this is not ready to proceed. Query to nominator: both sources give him three names, Wasik Farhan Roopkotha, and refer to him by that final name; the article only calls him by his first two names. Is there a reason the article doesn't use his full name? (If you use him in a revised hook, please spell out "seven" per WP:NUMERAL. Thanks!) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. I had no problem with his last name but different sources spell the name differently i.e Roopkatha/Roopkotha, so tried to skip it. Anyway I've included the name.--Zayeem(talk) 10:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've made some minor edits to the relevant article sentence; since the two sources given both use "Roopkotha", I didn't see that there was a spelling issue. (If you think it's important to list more than one spelling, be sure to add the other, currently unlisted sources.) While this issue is now settled, the article does need a copyedit: there are odd word choices and sentence. I'm also, frankly, troubled by the claim in the article's lead that Bangladesh's potential allows the assertion that it will be the next global leader in IT. This is based on highly optimistic extrapolations made by two individuals only, and I find it an extraordinary claim that is not justified by the references provided. In the History section, the copyedit could help make more clear that the first paragraph occurred before Bangladesh existed; "erstwhile" is a nice word, but "former" or "formerly" is more clear. I'm unable to get access to FN3 (Banglapedia), which provides most of the information here, so I can't check: was there one computer, or more than one ("mainframes")? Since each mainframe was an independent computer back then, I think either both should be singular or both should be plural. Finally, the last sentence of the article seems based on the source's headline, but the source contents appear to say that the sector won't be 7.28% of GDP in 2021—1/14 of GDP is beyond huge—but that if current trends continue will add 7.28% to previously expected GDP growth. That's very significant, but the article needs to get this fact right. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, yes the claim in the lead was really an extraordinary one, my failed attempt to expand the lead. :/ I've fixed it. I've also replaced the word "erstwhile" with "formerly" per your suggestion. About the Banglapedia article, can't figure out why you are unable to access it, there is nothing required to access Banglapedia, if problem persists try a web archive site. Regarding the last line, I just kept it the way the source reports it. If you still find anything dubious or misleading in the article feel free to reword or even remove it, I won't be able to log in wikipedia in the next few days. Thanks.--Zayeem(talk) 06:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Kmzayeem, thanks for making those fixes. I have since been able to access Banglapedia—I think their servers were overloaded when I tried—and see that it was indeed a single mainframe. Banglapedia is not written in the best English, which is unfortunate; the Wikipedia article's reuse of their word, "erstwhile", would have been concerning if you hadn't already changed it. There is still some overly close paraphrasing; compare the article's "The computer was of IBM mainframes from the 1620 series and was installed mostly for the complicated calculations in the research works." with Banglapedia's "It was an IBM Mainframe Computer of 1620 series. The main use of the machine was resolving complicated mathematical calculations in different research works." Finally, the article here still needs a significant copyedit, which would hopefully encompass the problematic GDP text I mentioned above. You'll need to find someone to help you; I don't have the time or, frankly, the desire to clean up the article. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I did a bit of cleanup, without having looked at this DYK nom; I don't know if the issues brought up here are addressed at all. I did do some tweaking but, again, I can't judge if that alleviates the paraphrasing concerns since I didn't check with the sources. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I tried to fix the close paraphrasings prior to the copyedits though. Waiting for BM's reply.--Zayeem(talk) 18:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm noticing some issues with paraphrasing: compare for example "to create the required policies and carry out programs for the efficacious use and expansion of computers and information technology" with "to formulate necessary policies and to implement programmes for expansion and effective utilisation of computers and IT" - synonyms have been used, but the phrasing is the same. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I just changed the sentence a bit, hope the paraphrasing is fine now. Please take a look.--Zayeem(talk) 11:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Cant have a DYK on something that hasn't happened. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Yogesh, this is demonstrably untrue. DYKs on forthcoming movies, television shows, and other planned events have certainly been run, so a hook that mentions someone who is set to be in the next Guinness release is fair game. If you mean something else by your comment, please explain more fully. As it stands, the hook wording does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
A planned event takes place after months or years of effort has been put in place. One could say "... that X sport is scheduled to feature in the 2020 Olympics for the first time? This case imo is different. Of the list here, BBC's informs that he does a little C++, (no doubt, at an age when most of us did our A, B, Cs) but that hardly makes him an IT expert. The story is dated April, 2012, it says that he is hoping to have his name in the Guinness Book of World Records. It is August 2013, and the event hasn't yet happened. The follow is a DYK candidate, but the hook could be: "...that as told by his mother to the BBC, Wasik Farhan-Roopkotha, a Bangladeshi computer prodigy began using computers at the age of seven months?" Or "began using computers before he could talk" Also see: "Monir Hosen, the managing director of Creative IT Limited was there when Roopkotha was demonstrated his skills in Dhaka. “I am not sure about how much he knows about the computer language "C"..." So "IT expert is a little hyperbolic". Perhaps about "Believe it or not!" Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I haven't looked at the year-earlier stories from 2012, but the two cited in the article were from May 2013: the boy is presumably a year older and more capable. But the point is that he is set to have his name listed in such a fashion in Guinness. Not whether you think he should be for such a reason, or that Monir Hosen (or whoever) thinks it might be a hyperbolic categorization. For your proposed candidate hook, I think "as told by his mother" kills any interest in it. Also, if you need to explain that much, the hook won't work. Whatever you may think of Guinness or their methodology, it's recognizable, interesting, and the original hook is clearly supported by reliable sources. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
How about "...that Wasik Farhan-Roopkotha a seven year Bangladeshi boy began using computers before he could talk?" Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
As the article creator, I would go with the original hook as it is referenced and more interesting. Also someone please check if the paraphrasing is fixed or not, BlueMoonset, Nikkimaria! Thanks.--Zayeem(talk) 15:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I did a partial review of this nom in response to BlueMoonset's request on my talk page. (I don't have time to do a complete review right now.)
I don't like the idea of publishing a hook about this boy. Regarding his listing in the Guinness Book of World Records, the only fact that I am sure is verified by the sources is that his mother says that he will be listed. She may be correct, but I don't see a fact that can be featured on the main page. Anyway, it is not clear that this little boy is particularly relevant to the topic of information technology in Bangladesh; at best, it could be said that his story is one indication of the growth of information technology in the country. I'd prefer to see a hook about something like the dramatic growth in Internet use (from 3.2 percent of the population in 2009 to 21.27 percent ion 2012, according to ).
That same source is the one that describes the IT sector's projected 7.28% contribution to GDP growth. From the way the source is worded, I don't think it's possible to determine what the 7.28% figure means. Other statistics in the source (such as the increase on internet use) are more clearly stated, however, and could be used in the article (and possibly in hooks). --Orlady (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Orlady, the boy was also accorded a reception for this feat (). Anyway, how about this hook,