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 MPJ-DK 22:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Overall: The relatively high copyvio score by Earwig's tool is explained by a couple of extensive quotations within the article. Otherwise, the nom is GTG.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I did a little copy editing to the hook and clarified it was the Indian President when moving it to prep. the hook I added is "that the mercy plea of the couple sentenced to death in the Poonia murder case was rejected by Indian President Pranab Mukherjee?" just FYI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPJ-DK (talk • contribs) 12:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
This has been pulled from prep after it was pointed out by Black Kite at WT:DYK that it contains a good amount of poor English and grammar and also contains a large of amount of unsourced statements including some that cast aspersions on people. I read over the article, and also had trouble with the grammar: antecedents are confusing, a number of sentences are oddly constructed: in short, it needs a thorough copyedit. I would recommend that the Guild of Copy Editor be asked to provide the copyedit, while additional sourcing be found (see one example on the talk page). I've struck the original hook and listed the updated hook per MPJ-DK's edits as ALT1 up top. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I would just like to point out, BlueMoonset, that when pulling this hook from prep you edited MPJ-DK's promotion comment in addition to adding your own. Pppery (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, I added a period and the "unsigned" template to that comment at the end so it had a sig now that the "promoted" text and its timestamp was gone from the top of the page and no sig could be inferred. That's it. However, that top text was not edited by me; it is automatically removed by reverting the substitution that closes a nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
No, BlueMoonset, you appear in have added the text This has been pulled from to MPJ-DK's promotion comment above, which I reverted in this diff. Pppery (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
My apologies to you and to MPJ-DK, Pppery; I certainly didn't mean to do that, and thought I had cleaned it up when restoring the template—I had to revert the promotion and reinsert MPJ-DK's text, and apparently didn't do a good job of that or of comparing diffs a couple of hours ago to see what I did. Thanks for catching my error. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Placed a request at GOCE for copyediting. But that would not solve the "large of amount of unsourced statements including some that cast aspersions on people" problem. Please highlight those here. Nothing in this article is unsourced; you probably aren't just reading all sources listed in references section. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Update: Copyediting done by GOCE team. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
This article is new enough and long enough. The article has been copyedited and seems to have sufficient citations. It is neutral and does not appear to have policy issues. The hook is interesting and sourced. Good to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The relatively high copyvio score by Earwig's tool is explained by a couple of extensive quotations within the article. Otherwise, the nom is GTG.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
This has been pulled from prep after it was pointed out by Black Kite at WT:DYK that it contains 
New review needed. North America1000 12:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
This article is new enough and long enough. The article has been copyedited and seems to have sufficient citations. It is neutral and does not appear to have policy issues. The hook is interesting and sourced. Good to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
