Talk:Sylvester da Cunha

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sylvester da Cunha article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Sylvester da Cunha was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 20, 2023	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 31, 2023.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in 1966 Sylvester da Cunha modelled the Amul girl to contrast with the mascot of Amul's main rival, Polson?

A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on June 25, 2023.

India: Goa / Maharashtra / Mumbai Low‑importance

	India portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Goa (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Maharashtra (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Mumbai (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article was last assessed in July 2023.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Biography

	Biography portal 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
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Portugal Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal 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.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Portugal To-do:

Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.

Improve key articles to Good article

Improve

Review

Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).

Requests

See Requested articles

Assess

Help assessing articles.

Need images

Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia

Wikify

Vote:

Watch this list — Edit this list

Theatre Low‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Did you know nomination

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 AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Indian advertising professional Sylvester da Cunha modeled the Amul girl in 1966 for dairy brand Amul as an exact opposite of the mascot of the incumbent Polson butter? Source: https://buildd.co/marketing/amul-advertising-strategy
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ashford International Studios

Created by Ktin (talk). Self-nominated at 18:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sylvester da Cunha; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

New article, long enough. No neutrality issues, all statements in the article are sourced with inline citations. No copyvio issues; Earwig does return a false positive from a source that has copied from Wikipedia. Hook is interesting, neutral and sourced to a reliable source. QPQ is done. Nice article Ktin! ITBF (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Unsuccessful. MSG17 (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sylvester da Cunha/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MSG17 (talk · contribs) 16:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be reviewing this article according to the GA criteria (planning to be done within a week). This review is a part of the August 2023 GAN drive.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Decapitalize taluka

Three sentence in a row begin with "The campaign"; could you introduce more variety?
Otherwise looks good.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Refs are listed properly. Some issues inline, however:
Book and magazine citations (eg. 8-10) need dates, page numbers and authors/publishers in the rights params if available.

Web references: Some (eg. 18 and 19) should use the website name instead of a url, also ref 3 needs to be formatted to have the source name in the website parameter instead of in the author and title parameters (remove unneeded, bot generated pipe portion)
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
Sources used look good. Will look again later.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Ran through Earwig, no plagarism from Web sources (just see Wikipedia mirrors). Don't see any issues from psychical sources either.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Mostly minor edits in the past few weeks, no constant changes
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
No images, so no potential violations

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
I don't think having images or not would be a deal-breaker. However, I would recommend adding a fair use image of da Cunha and the Amul girl in the Career section if you want to put some in.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
@Ktin: Are you planning to look at this soon? Not to pressure you, just want to know for the drive/if I need to put the review on hold.
@Ktin: Hi, sorry for the long delay. I should br able to restart this review next week, if you like.
@Ktin: Alright, I'm just going to close this because its been a long time and we've both not been active enough to maintain this nomination. MSG17 (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@MSG17: not sure how this one fell of my tracking list as I spent most of my time off-wiki in the last few months. I have made the edits -- please can you have a look at your convenience. Ktin (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ktin: No worries, I've been pretty busy too and let this review slip as well. If you want, I will evaluate the page again if you renominate it. MSG17 (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]