A fact from Anuradha Ramanan appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 August 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Notability doesn't come from inheritance and hence a better hook could have been made. Keeping this as a subordinate clause, the fact that her many books have been adapted into films could have been highlighted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely lame one!! Such DYKs should be stopped from promoting on the main page. It just adds "credits" to the editor and does nothing good. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no policy stating that the hook itself should establish the notability of the subject. It's a pity that I was unable to find anything interesting in the article. I'm wondering how a fact which says that a novel written by some writer was adapted into a film could sound interesting for some people, as if no films are made from novels. (If we were to frame a hook like that, that should be given top priority here. If I say "Abhishek Bachchan is the son of Amitabh Bachchan", it might sound silly as it's a well-known fact. In case of Anuradha, I'm not sure how many of us would be knowing that she was the grand-daughter of R. Balasubramaniam, a relatively unknown actor. FYI, the hook managed 1.5k hits, which is quite decent for an article of this standard. Above all, the original hook was with in policy which none of the DYK delegates insist upon for a change. "Interestingness" may not be the same for everyone. I could have gone with a fact that connects the allegations made by her towards the Jayendra Saraswathi one of the Kanchi seers, which people like you might find very interesting, although ignoring the negative aspects. Vivvt, your comments about myself being an author who edits just for the sake of adding credit to myself is irrelevant here and rather sounds "childish". —Vensatry(Ping) 08:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know we are discussing about this article. The hook could have been bettered if a similar discussion had been taken place here. —Vensatry(Ping) 08:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vivvt, mine was way better than your hooks which were mostly influenced by "subjectivity" and "POV" —Vensatry(Ping) 09:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}