Template:Did you know nominations/British Committee of the Indian National Congress
- 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 4meter4 (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
British Committee of the Indian National Congress[edit]
- ... that the British Committee of the Indian National Congress was formed in 1889 because the Government of India was constitutionally responsible to the British electorate?
Created by Rueben lys (talk). Self-nominated at 15:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC).
- Review in progress, looks like it will pass but not finished yet. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Review completed. Article approved. Hook approved. Rueben lys has many old DYN credits and at least one recent one, but he has few if any quid-pro-quos and no recent ones (I checked his edits to pages whose names started with Template:Did you know and Template talk:Did you know). Quid pro quo needed then this will be good to go. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Davidwr: Yes, it is always better to do QPQ because there so many pending DYKs yet to be reviewed. But in this case Rueben lys has only 2 DYK credits till now. One in 2013 and another one in 2015, 5 months ago. As per DYK guidelines QPQ is not needed if nominator has less than 5 DYKs. So it will be better to give tick mark to this one, I am just saying because this is already an old nomination.--Human3015TALK 12:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- He claims a lot more than 2 on his user page. Before I made my earlier comment (dated 00:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)), I went through his contribution history. Unless I made a mistake AND his user page is incorrect, he has far more than 5 DYK nominations and unless I mis-counted his reviews, he has done zero or maybe one of those. In any case, I am satisfied that the number of DYK nominations he has made exceeds the number of DYK reviews he has done by far more than 5. This means we either waive the rules on the grounds that all but two of the DYK credits are "ancient history" or we require a QPQ. Personally, I have no objection to waiving the rules in this and similar cases (or, for that matter, officially changing the rules to only require a QPQ if there are 5 or more recent DYK credits), but I doubt the rest of the community would agree to making an exception (they might agree to changing the rules, but only after a discussion). For what it's worth, he was not required to do a QPQ for one of his two recent nominations because the reviewer didn't know about the old DYK credits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Davidwr: Yes, it is always better to do QPQ because there so many pending DYKs yet to be reviewed. But in this case Rueben lys has only 2 DYK credits till now. One in 2013 and another one in 2015, 5 months ago. As per DYK guidelines QPQ is not needed if nominator has less than 5 DYKs. So it will be better to give tick mark to this one, I am just saying because this is already an old nomination.--Human3015TALK 12:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear, there has been a storm here. I have sixteen DYK credits, mostly from 2007-2010 (its on my user page) and two between 2013 and 2015. Let's leave this to rest since I am more than happy to do a QPQ like every one else and no rule is going to be changed. Thanks for your help everyone.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 08:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
QPQd now.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 12:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] Good to go. Queue it up.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@Davidwr: you should provide a review that explicitly confirms that the five main DYK criteria have been met. Here is a review of close paraphrasing: the following sentences need to be rewritten in the author's own words:- Source: The Congress established a paid agency in London in 1888 under William Digby which arranged lectures in England and distributed pamphlets.
- Article: In 1888 a paid agency under Digby was established in Britain by the Congress. Digby's organisation arranged lectures in England and distributed pamphlets.
- Source: W.C. Bonnerjee and Dadabhai Naoroji enlisted the support of the prominent radical MP Charles Bradlaugh to take up Indian issues in Parliament.
- Article: Congress leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji and W.C. Bonnerjee had been able to enlist the support of radical MP Charles Bradlaugh to take up Indian issues in the British Parliament.
- I added a few citation needed tags to material that should be sourced, including the contention that the committee influenced the passage of the Indian Councils Act 1892 (the source does not indicate that). I also added a "why" tag to the point about it being abolished. Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Please accept that I did go through and review all 5 criteria in good faith. I did notice what was borderline close paraphrasing but at the time I did the review, I felt I could give the contributor the benefit of the doubt. Obviously, it's a judgment call and I'm willing to reconsider that I may have erred in my judgment. As for the other items: Good catch. The
Nicholas Owen (2007)
reference in India House may be helpful but I don't have a copy handy. That article says p. 67 backs up the claim that... Krishna Varma founded The Indian Sociologist ... as a challenge to the British Committee's Indian
. Given how these articles tie into each other, I would expect the references from the older article to back up what is in the newer one. The question is, which specific references back up what. @Rueben lys: do you have access to these sources and can you provide in-line citations where they are needed? Also, if you can rewrite the close paraphrasing that would be helpful as well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Please accept that I did go through and review all 5 criteria in good faith. I did notice what was borderline close paraphrasing but at the time I did the review, I felt I could give the contributor the benefit of the doubt. Obviously, it's a judgment call and I'm willing to reconsider that I may have erred in my judgment. As for the other items: Good catch. The
Is this some sort of a joke? Do you have any idea what close paraphrasing is and what you're saying. You have isolated four sentences win an article that size and claiming that these are closely paraphrased, what i they were from my own train of thought and still sound similar in structure? And then proceeded to delete most of the contents of the article??? I am struggling to assue good faith here. "Good catch"??? All the references are available on google books, please have a look and clarify yourt accusation and objection before putting up frivolous objection or criticisms! David I must object to your review and I request you remove yourself from this review process as you have demonstrated your incomepetence.
@Davidwr:@Yoninah:
I am a bit lost here. Four sentences written apparently closely similarly is not close paraphrasing, note that these are sentences with facts mentioned in them. The Krishnavarma quote I will reference in a few minutes. I am a bit disappointed by the reviewers vacillations, if that is the right way to put it, but nonetheless I note the query raised re: concern, I can address. On the "close paraphrasing", I am afraid I cannot agree with the reviewer, especially since these are four isolated sentences, the reviewer does not provide any objecive evidence that this is close paraphrasing, and more so on the broader scale of intellectual dishonesty (which is were the issues of copyvio and close paraphrasing come from) the reviewers objections do not stand up to scrutiny.
Lastly, the reader will note the above struck out input from myself. I did not wish to come accross rude, but I stand by the content of the article and the integrity of my contribution.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, two sentences, not four. I am unable to share the reviewers concerns.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Rueben lys: using the same words as the source, or rearranging the same words in a sentence from the source constitutes close paraphrasing. You could easily change some of these words. Regarding my edits, I am very surprised that you labeled them "vandalism". Articles that appear on the main page must appear much more polished than a block of copy. I'm glad you restored the paragraph breaks. Regarding the lengthy "See also" section, please read WP:NOTSEEALSO, which explains that links already included in the article should not be listed here. Yoninah (talk) 11:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: I believe I owe you an apology for the above. I had misunderstood or misinterpreted the content and subject your criticism which is through and through constructive. I am struggling a bit to explain myself, so I shall not try. Many thanks for your comments and edits in the article. You obviously took the time to look through the article and contribute, which most editors don't and are satisfied to point out what needs done rather than doing it themselves. I misinterpreted your edits as disruptive and rather unfortunately called it vandalism. Many apologies for the above and many thanks for your efforts. Aticle has now been edited appropriately.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks for taking care of the close paraphrasing. I also replaced my "why?" tag with the information from the source. Here is a full review: New enough, long enough, adequately referenced, neutrally written, no close paraphrasing seen. Hook ref verified and cited inline. QPQ done. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
