Template:Did you know nominations/Param Vir Chakra recipients

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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
As noted, the majority of this article was copied from Param Vir Chakra; by DYK rules the article would have to be expanded 5x the amount copied, and that would require an article longer than the source article. Closing because it cannot meet the criteria.

List of Param Vir Chakra recipients

(

)

Param Vir Chakra, India's highest military decoration

... that of the twenty-one Param Vir Chakra awardees, only one is an Indian Air Force officer?

ALT1:... that of twenty-one Param Vir Chakra awardees, fourteen were posthumous awards?
ALT2:... that of twenty-one Param Vir Chakra awardees, fourteen were posthumous awards, and sixteen were for Indo-Pakistani conflicts?

Reviewed: Harrild & Sons

Created by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk). Self-nominated at 13:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC).

Some issues found.
- ✓ This article is new and was created on 11:22, 04 September 2016 (UTC)
- ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 2333 characters
- ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
- ✗ This article has the following issues:
  - {{New unreviewed article}} from September 2016
- ? A copyright violation is suspected by an automated tool, with 65.1% confidence. (confirm)
  - Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
No overall issues detected
- ✓ The media File:Param-vir-chakra-medal.png is free-use
- ✓ The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 109 characters
- ✓ The hook ALT1 is an appropriate length at 78 characters
- ✓ The hook ALT2 is an appropriate length at 150 characters
- ✓ Krishna Chaitanya Velaga has more than 5 DYK credits. A QPQ review of Harrild & Sons was performed for this nomination.

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 15:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is ALT0 interesting? Would we expect more of them to be Air Force officers for some reason? E Eng 19:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@EEng: It may be interesting for some.However, I have proposed alternate hooks. Please review them, or you could suggest one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me suggest:

ALT3 ... that the Param Vir Chakra is India's highest military decoration?

I realize the article is actually a "List of", but that doesn't mean the hook can't be the one I'm suggesting. Since most readers don't know what the Param Vir Chakra even is, ALTs0 to 2 are more puzzling than intriguing. E Eng 02:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@EEng: I disagree with your view that most readers don't know what the Param Vir Chakra even is. Please have a look at ALT4, ALT5. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

ALT4:... that of the twenty-one recipients of Param Vir Chakra, India's highest military decoration, fourteen received it posthumously?

ALT5:... that of the twenty-one recipients of Param Vir Chakra, India's highest military decoration, fourteen received it posthumously, and sixteen for action in Indo-Pakistani conflicts?

Much better. E Eng 17:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@EEng: Are there hooks good? Is the nomination GTG?

I'm not saying I'm undertaking to review this nom (not yet, anyway) but there's one thing that has to be gotten out of the way sooner or later, to wit the apparent copyvio here [1]. (If so there's a problem at Param Vir Chakra too.) Or is that source derivative of Wikipedia? E Eng 02:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@EEng: That source is a derivative of Wiki. Please do a check separately by bypassing the cache. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Bypass what cache? E Eng 05:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@EEng: The site is clearly a derivative of Wikipedia, and self-published one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but what "cache" are you talking about? E Eng 06:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@EEng: Sometimes the tool catches such derivatives and mirror sites. If your clear you browser cache and try once again, you'll get the accurate results. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That can't possibly have anything to do with it. Just to humor you I did dump cache, and got the same result. Anyway, why are you so sure the site draws from WP? E Eng 07:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@EEng: Please see the other articles on the site for examples. The bullet points are also from the infobox data from Param Vir Chakra. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@EEng: Please voice your opinion. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm taking the nominator's word for it that those other sites are mirroring WP. Neutral, sourced, hooks OK length and cited (Pakistani-conflict version from foreign-language source so AGF). Prefer ALT~~1 or 2~~4 or 5. I don't think the image is worth using. E Eng 02:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@EEng: Do you mean to approve ALT1 and ALT2, or do you mean ALT4 and ALT5, which you state are "Much better"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, no excuse. I meant 4 or 5. ALT0 is OK too, but if we're allowing reviewers to pass judgment on hook intersting-ness, I'd advise staying away from ALT0. E Eng 06:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I have pulled this one from p3 because I'm not persuaded it's not a partial copyvio from the site cited by EEng above. The Wikipedia article has only been in existence a few days and it seems unlikely the source would already be cribbing from it although it's not beyond the bounds of possibility I guess. The nominator said the site has used other Wikipedia content so I would like to see some examples before giving this one a pass. BTW, the hook was erroneous in any case, it was thirteen posthumous awards not fourteen. Gatoclass (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: It was fourteen, how do you say it was thirteen? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

One source does indeed say "two-thirds", but when I counted the number individually, I could only see thirteen. Try it for yourself. Gatoclass (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Crikey, I thought I counted 14 myself. Also, could the other sites be copying from Param_Vir_Chakra (main article, not list)? E Eng 17:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: The count is fourteen, it is clear. They are

You can confirm the same if you wish. And as for what you say "The Wikipedia article has only been in existence a few days", actually the parts of prose of this article were taken from the lead of Param Vir Chakra. The derivative site has extracted infromation from "Param Vir Chakra", not "Param Vir Chakra recipients". Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Whew! That's a relief. Gatoclass, off with your head! E Eng 01:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: It's been four days, please voice your reply. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

It isn't eligible. It contains only one new paragraph, about 1000 characters long, the rest is cribbed from an older version of the Param Vir Chakra article. The one new paragraph is information that should be in the Param Vir Chakra article anyway, not this one. And I really don't know why you thought it necessary to remove the list of recipients from the Param Vir Chakra article in the first place, given that it's not a long article and there have only been 21 recipients. Gatoclass (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)