Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/An Open Letter to Honey Singh

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 19:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

An Open Letter to Honey Singh

[edit]
(
)

Created/expanded by Yogesh Khandke (talk) & 7&6=thirteen (☎). Self nominated at 08:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Review New article, timely nominated. It has been waiting a review almost forever. If the block quote is eliminated, the article is presently (barely) too short. Meets core policies and guidelines (there is some nattering on the talk page about notability); and in particular: is neutral; cites sources with inline citations. DYK nomination was timely and article is easily long enough. Every paragraph is cited. There is potentially a copyright violation, although there is no close paraphrasing. Earwig's copy violation detector: An Open Letter to Honey Singh report gives it a clean bill, except for the long block quote of lyrics. Whether that is "fair use" or a copyright violation is a matter of judgment. Hook is hooky enough, I think, and relates directly to the essence of the article. It is interesting, decently neutral, and appropriately cited. QPQ not required as nominator has fewer than five DYKs. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you feel quote needs to be removed? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. For sure, it adds to the understanding of the article. It is kind of long, and some editors may deem it problematical. Long enough that I felt it had to be noted. We can ask a higher authority. Meanwhile, you need to add some length to the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I've asked for an outside opinion on the fair use question. [1] 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
That's a pretty long excerpt. Sure that it is needed? Also two maintenance tags are bad on a DYK.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I've removed the tags as there has been substantial additions to the article. I suggest that the block quote be cut at least in half. Use elipsis.... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 Done. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I cut more still and added elipses. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Review Good to go. Now long enough.
I do want whomever promotes this to be eyes on as to the quote. I think it is now fair use, but it is a judgment call and I don't want anyone to be misled by my tick. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) What's excerpted is still a major chunk (well over half, despite what's claimed above) of what's quoted in the source, which strikes me as too much, and it's also out of context, since the quoted section is apparently using Honey Singh's lyrics. I'm also troubled by the Context section after the first sentence, which doesn't seem to make sense, and the word "estimable" in the second intro paragraph is a value judgment that seems completely out of place, and not even an expressed view of the cited source. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
(1)The excerpt is part of the poem that parodies Singh's lyrics, they aren't used verbatim. (2)Estimable replaced. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset I cut the lyrics down to the nub. Alternatively, that whole section could be cut, and would have no effect on the DYK nomination.
I edited again the sections you didn't like.
If you don't like what is there now, then get another reviewer and make me a co-creator. I am fine with that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment New reviewer needed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: 7&6=thirteen has as good as revived the article and I would be happy that he be considered the co-creator. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I added myself as a co-creator and added a WP:QPQ, namely * Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/The Anita Krajnc Case 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen, sorry that my "edit conflict" template was confusing above; it only meant that when I went to save my comment, you'd edited your previous comment, so my reply, which I had to resubmit, still might not have taken your changes into account. At any rate, I've made some changes to article, mostly to the Review section, and I got rid of the excerpt, which I thought was the best route here. However, I can't see that any changes have been made to the Context section, which was the major issue I noted earlier, and the reason I've added a ? icon here rather than calling for a new reviewer. (It might be useful to specifically note that the Verma rap and Zaidi letter have the same title, to avoid confusion.) I also removed the current number of YouTube hits: it was uncited, a comparatively small increase, and not the same level of precision: if you use 1.5 million first, then the later number should be similar in format. Finally, the space in the page name is causing troubles, so I'm going to move it to remove that unnecessary space; we usually discourage nomination page moves, but this is a problem that needs fixing. I think I've fixed the DYKmake credited to you, but please make sure there aren't any errors; I'm not used to that form of parameter specification. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I clarified the text that pertains to the other letter that shares the same title/name. Thanks for fixing the malformed page. I think we've solved the problems. Is that good for you? Thanks for your help. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, 7&6=thirteen. I've done a bit more work in the Context section, and had to remove the final phrase since the cited criticism appeared before Sharma's letter, so it couldn't have been about his views specifically. I also had to add the hook fact "a million hits in five days", because it hadn't appeared anywhere in the article; I didn't see the 1.5 million number in the cited reference (which was published over two weeks before that milestone was supposedly reached), so I removed that. I've changed the "Hits" section to have the header "Social media", which I think is better. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed to check updated article and also confirm that hook is accurate and fully supported. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Ditto Thanks for your fine assistance. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: The main objections about the extract have been resolved as it is now not used in the article. The YouTube hits is explained clearly, referenced and dated to avoid ever needing updating. This nomination is a great example of collaboration. Well done, all. Jolly Ω Janner 00:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/An_Open_Letter_to_Honey_Singh&oldid=878362478"