Template:Did you know nominations/Bollywood Striptease
- 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: rejected by SupernovaExplosion Talk 16:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Bollywood Striptease
[edit]- ... that Neeta Shah described her 2012 novel Bollywood Striptease as a "factual, but fictionalised" description of the Hindi film industry?
Created/expanded by SupernovaExplosion (talk). Self nom at 04:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Masabumi Hosono --SupernovaExplosion Talk 04:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
QPQ done. New enough and long enough. No pictures to check. Hook properly formated. (Plot does not need to be cited per style guide.) Plagiarism check: here, here, here. No major concerns. Hook is supported by inline citation, where article source supports text. Neutral enough, but article is really short so hard not to be neutral. Selection of reviews mentioned helps with neutrality.
Fact tag needs cleaning. (Tagged because this information is NOT sourced in the body of the article.) Why does the review section start out with comments from the author of the book? Stub tag needs to be removed as DYKs cannot be stubs.- Hooks is interesting enough given article brevity and available points of interest HOWEVER, it may be trivial and its relative location in the article makes it seem likely this fact could be removed for being in the wrong section in the future. Fix organisation or propose alternative hook. --LauraHale (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Fix fact tag and DYK related hook issue. --LauraHale (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Cleaned fact tag and added referenced. Fixed organization. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 06:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Not entirely happy because author description still appears in the review section which causes some organisational issues that I could see leading to its trivial removal, and the author clearly is NOT reviewing her own book... and the source of the DYK hook is based on the author of the book in question, but if some one wants to move it over and feels comfortable based on the above, go for it. --LauraHale (talk) 06:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please check, author description appears in the last sentence of the lead, not in the review section. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 07:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see any scope for further improvement. So as per the concern raised by Laura, I'm withdrawing this nom. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 16:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)