Template:Did you know nominations/Saradha Group financial scandal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of Saradha Group financial scandal's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you knowDYK comment symbol (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 16:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC).

Saradha Group financial scandal[edit]

Created/expanded by Legaleagle86 (talk). Self nominated at 10:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg I like your hook but this fact needs inline citation for DYK (see Hook Content rule 3). -SusanLesch (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Added reference for the largest ponzi scam in India from website ponzitracker. [1], the 10% tax hook was already referenced in the article [2]. LegalEagle (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg First hook. Please correct the article to use the source. It does not say this is the biggest Ponzi scheme in the history of India. It says, "If true, the scheme would be not only one of the largest schemes in India, but would rank as one of the largest in history." Second hook. Please reword the article. Currently the sentence about this tax is way too close paraphrasing of its source (it appears to be a direct quote). -SusanLesch (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Used the word 'potentially' to emphasise that the amount lost is still speculative, paraphrased the tax sentence a bit more, pls do let me know if this suffices.LegalEagle (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg Yes, thank you, the sentence about the tax is better (even though its sentence structure still closely follows the source). But for your first hook you will need to add a source for the rest of the sentence: "front-page news nationally and internationally". Also the next sentence has no source: "After a massive manhunt, Sudipto Sen, Debjani Mukhopadhdhay, and Arvind Singh Chauhan were arrested in Sonmarg, Kashmir on 23 April 2013." -SusanLesch (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Added source for the arrest line. As for the first sentence on front page news, its difficult to attribute a single source, I have been trawling through the archives of newspapers published from West Bengal like The Telegraph, Statesman, (english dailies) Anadabazar Patrika and Bartaman (bengali dailies). Between 22 April to 30 April the front page of these dailies were saturated with news from the ponzi scam, though internationally the news did not make much splash (removed the word internationally from the article) but nationally the news was picked and all the newspapers had some front page feature on the issue. Also did a basic google news search with variations of strings 'Saradha' + {'Bengal' etc.} got between 8000 - 15000 hits. Do you reckon we should put the google search links or the individual newspaper's archive link? or should we leave it alone.LegalEagle (talk) 10:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
If you can cite two national newspaper headlines that would be great. Otherwise please omit that part of the sentence if it is unsourced. Thank you for citing the arrests. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Added 2 citations from Times of India and Indian Express.LegalEagle (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. It's still front page at Times of India. (I am sorry but the New York Times and the Washington Post both ignored the story in the U.S. so far.) -SusanLesch (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Hook is cited, date checks out. Five times expansion. Ready to go! -SusanLesch (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)