Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/2012 Indian Premier League spot fixing case

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion 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  MehrajMir  (Talk) 06:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 Indian Premier League spot fixing case

[edit]
(
)

Created/expanded by Vibhijain (talk). Self nom at 13:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Written July 6, nom July 10. Prose is 1563 bytes per DYKcheck. The hook is properly sourced. Refs are properly formatted. It could be a stub. There are only two paragraphs and there is some redundancy between them; more information is available in the sources. The article might add, for example, "BCCI President N Srinivasan expressed surprise and outrage over the improprieties, reiterating the board's zero-tolerance policy for corruption," and, "Players were suspended less than 24 hours after the sting operation aired on TV." (Both from the CricketCountry source.) The hook is not especially "hooky" - it is more newslike. See ALT1 for an alternative. — This being my first DYK review, I'd appreciate a second opinion. -- ke4roh (talk) 10:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


  • Time for fresh eyes? --PFHLai (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I read this. I think it needs a bit more meat to it. This is my first review of DYK. Just letting you know. I think if there is continuous work needs to be done on the content and add more facts. Is the article on the Spot fixing or on the sting operation? Or is the sting operation the starting history of this spot fixing? Khyati Gupta (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I have also added a small Stub Template on the article. Khyati Gupta (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I concur that it's still a stub, and they are not eligible for DYK. Whilst technically just long enough, and assessing it as a stub is somewhat subjective, I'm now the third editor who talks about this being a stub, and as such, it needs to be expanded further. It also needs a good copyedit (Where, for example, can you bruy players, or have they possibly been bought? Numbers under 11 are to be spelled out.). Schwede66 23:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is a stub too. Expansion of the sting operation would be nice. If you can find out "who, what, when where and why" info of several sting operations done, it can add up to the article. :) And some of the info of the article is relevant to this article which i believe is not included in one of your citations. So you can add this and make your article even better. More news on several sting operations can be found here As an Indian, this is a very interesting topic to me so I am more than willing to seek more resources if necessary. Khyati Gupta (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Give me today's time, and I will fix it. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Done. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. I still don't think it is good enough for DYK. It is difficult to see if the article is on the spot fixing or on the sting operation. The structure of the article is confusing. From the wording, it seems like the only evidence behind the spot fixing is the sting operation. For example: "According to the sting operation, some of the players revealed that they have received more money from the franchises' owners than what they are brought for in the players auction; they also said that this money was black money". "India TV's managing editor Vinod Kapri said,"We had been working on this sting since May last year". Is the the only sting operation done? Was this the sting operation which was the first ever to reveal the tactics of the IPL? If not, what makes it so unique? Were there more and more stings done? Also, this article is still a stub. And further recommendations might improve the article so that it can be improved. :D Sorry if I sound stingy. I just want to make sure these things. If not, someone else can jump in and help more. Thanks Khyati Gupta (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Also one more thing. The hook needs rewording. An emphasis on sting operation needs to be visible in the hook. Also, instead of hooking the article as "On TV", hook it with better wording. Again, I do not mean to be anal. I am just trying to make your article better. Do not take this personally. Thanks :] Khyati Gupta (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The article has been expanded and it's no longer a stub. The other concerns that I raised above remain. Schwede66 03:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Just some clarification: It all started with a sting operation. The BCCI took this seriously, and after the investigation the players were called to the office. They were given a chance to put forward their opinion, and each player was guilty. This article covers both the sting operation and its aftermath, and the following bans. The sting operation is the only proof, but the BCCI has taken it as authentic. As of the copy-edit, I admit that there might be some problems, but as of my knowledge, that is not a requirement for DYK. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Regarding a copyedit, I have always regarded it as a requirement that something is written in proper English before it is mainpage-ready. Rule D13 may cover that, but I admit that it's not specifically spelled out. I thus invite other DYK regulars to have a read and decide whether it's 'good enough' or not. From my perspective, the copyedit is the one remaining issue. Schwede66 18:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, I saw you add this nominate article to this article. Add this link into your nominated article if you haven't done so yet. Its not a requirement but will only make it better :) Khyati Gupta (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Note that I've been asked by Guptakhy to look over her shoulder, as she's new at DYK & WP, to ensure that she gets things right. I've edited her latest suggestion and turned the hook into ALT3 with links. Schwede66 06:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Schwede66 for being awesomely helpful :) Lets hope that this hook and this DYK makes it :) Khyati Gupta (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the alt. However change Kings XI to King XI Punjab, an Srivastava to Shalabh Srivastava. As of the copyedit, I will try to further fix it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hook fixed. ;) Khyati Gupta (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have further tried to copy-edit it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It is best that user: Schwede66 or any other user looks it over as I have recommended a hook so I might have conflict of interest. Khyati Gupta (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Each of the three remaining ALTs mention a specific amount of money (which appears to have been doubled); however, these numbers appear nowhere in the article. It isn't enough that they be mentioned in the sources, they must be in the article itself and cited there if it's going to appear in the hook. A possible solution is to end ALT3 after "caught game fixing"; the bribe amounts aren't necessary, and make the hook less interesting to readers outside of India. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Noting that I have given it a bit of a copyedit. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see the proposed hook below:

Khyati Gupta (talk) 04:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Since I don't know the first thing about cricket, you have to forgive me for my ignorance. But I note that the term game fixing does not appear in the target article. I'm assuming that it's the same as spot-fixing, but if that is the case, can we align the choice of words between the hook and the article? Schwede66 05:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, cool. How about:

  • He was not caught spot fixing, he was caught to be willing to do so. Hindustan Zinda bad 09:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we need a new legit hook coming straight out of the article with a citation at the end of the sentence. Khyati Gupta (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yea, that sounds good. A little long, though. But it sounds legit. Khyati Gupta (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added a hyphen to the above hook. Schwede66 18:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I think we need someone who was not involved with editing the article to be reviewing it. Khyati Gupta (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll pass this, but I proposer a much shorter hook:

I pinged a couple of people. Lets see if anyone helps out :) Khyati Gupta (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) ALT7 approved: it is sourced in the article, and is much snappier than ALT6, which I have struck, along with all the other earlier hooks, each of which had problems. Tick is for the hook; the rest of the article was approved by Drmies. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Note: I trimmed some more, for reasons explained in edit summaries. Fortunately the article is still long enough. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/2012_Indian_Premier_League_spot_fixing_case&oldid=1021346652"