Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Left and Secular Alliance

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 Skr15081997 (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Left and Secular Alliance

[edit]
(
)

Created by Soman (talk). Self nominated at 15:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC).

  • In the election season, every party accuses some other party of malpractices. Such accusations are many a times baseless, media stunts and hold no gravity in course of actual law enforcement. Was this "claim" of the alliance any notable? Caution needs to be taken to not let any negative or defamatory stuff pass onto main page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Extra caution should be taken now that the results are already out. The article claims malpractices on parts of Indian National Congress whose candidate Thokchom Meinya has finally won the election. None of the references you presented say anything more than the Alliance "claiming" malpractices. One reference says that the Election Commission discussed the case. And that's all that's about it. As no cognizance is taken as such by EC, i see little value to this "claim". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The hook doesn't use any other wording than 'claim' neither. --Soman (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The point is; if the claim is trivial, it can't be in the article and hence can't be the hook. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I would like to see an ALT1 here, saying something like "... that in the 2014 Indian general election the Left and Secular Alliance of Manipur, India, consisted of x political parties?" - but what number is x? The header mentions ten, but it is unclear to me which ten because you have listed only eight together in one sentence. If you could add the complete list clearly into the article with citation(s), and propose a similar ALT1, I could then review the article for you.--Storye book (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The exact number seems to have been somewhat fluid, and this not suitable for hook. Perhaps another ALT could deal with the fact that whilst some of the parties are enemies in All India politics, they united in LSA? --Soman (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @ Soman. The hook you suggest would be OK if there were a cited statement in the article to the same effect, but there is no hint there that any of the alliance parties are or were actual enemies. Could you add that in? Or maybe elaborate in the article on inter-party disputes and change "enemies" to "disputing parties" or similar?--Storye book (talk) 08:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It looks like this has been abandoned. There has been no editing activity on this article since 11 May (except for my edit that added dates to the reference citations). --Orlady (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Soman has been involved in quite a few noms, but he/she doesn't appear to have ever received a talkpage alert about this one - please could we allow a few days in the hope of a response? I have posted a talkpage alert today.--Storye book (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'm a bit tied up with other stuff for now, I'll try to address it tomorrow. --Soman (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Parking this while waiting for Soman. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I've expanded a bit, adding a passage on how BJP supported the LSA claim. Proposed
  • Note for my own reference: ALT2 has 199 characters. Busy now, but shall look at Soman's expansion shortly.--Storye book (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I looked at the new content, but ran into a connection problem on the new online source. Presumably it will clear up later. However, I note that the article uses several abbreviations, such as BJP, CPI, and JD(U), that are never explained. Please define these by inserting them in parentheses where the full names are first introduced. For example: Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). --Orlady (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Full review after recent edits to article: Thank you, Soman and Orlady. New enough (for 11 May) and long enough. QPQ done. No problems with disambig links or with access to external links according to DYK review tools. ALT1 is acceptable and just within length limit at 199 characters, but see issue 1 below. It checks out online with citations #1 for the rivalry and #10 for joint delegation of alliance and BJP. The text is objectively and neutrally written, and fully cited. All external links checked for sources of potential copyvio or close paraphrasing; none found. Issues: (1) ALT1 is 199 characters and a bit wordy. It could be shortened by rephrasing, e.g. "that the blah, rivals in the blah, later sent a joint blah. (2) Please clarify the abbreviations in the article as requested by Orlady above. When issues 1 and 2 are resolved, this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Here's a slightly shorter version of the hook:
  • Review of ALT1A: Thank you, Orlady. 183 characters. Short enough and hooky. Rephrased/shortened version of ALT1 (now struck), it checks out online as detailed above.--Storye book (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Remaining issue: Please clarify the abbreviations in the article as requested by Orlady above. --Storye book (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Abbreviations clarified now. I'm ok with ALT1A. --Soman (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you Soman. All issues resolved. Good to go (at last) with ALT1A. --Storye book (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Left_and_Secular_Alliance&oldid=1016627341"