Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Swami Vivekananda statue (Golpark, Kolkata)

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 Allen3 talk 10:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Swami Vivekananda statue (Golpark, Kolkata)

[edit]
(
)
  • Reviewed: Not self creation/expansion Required as nomination was requested by creator

Created by Titodutta (talk). Nominated by Solomon7968 (talk) at 02:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC).

Date request
  • Looks good, but the hook is a little vague, if there are other statues I'd give a number.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes there are few more statues of Vivekananda in the city. --Tito☸Dutta 11:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • QPQ will be required, as the creator requested that the nominator nominate this for him. Whatever the motives, it is inappropriate to bypass QPQ in this manner. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that the Kolkata Municipal Corporation provided ₹1.2 million (US$14,000) for a new 12-foot-high statue of Swami Vivekananda in Golpark, Kolkata?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 07:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC) minor changes by Tito☸Dutta 09:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Good suggestion. --Tito☸Dutta 09:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Needs a full review now that hook and QPQ are settled. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, that means you've been slacking on the job for 21 days. Well, I'm trying, but there are problems. First, the grammar was and is tortured and I've done some major copy editing already. Second, it's on the short side and not very exciting, but quality is not a concern at DYK, I'm told. Third, I'm in the first paragraph of the "Bronze statue" section, and there's trouble. The sentence "In 2006, Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture..." is tortured like you wouldn't believe, and the claim is not borne out in the article: in fact, the article does not mention the new statue, and claims the old one is from 1961, not 1966. And it does not verify that the new statue was unveiled in 2006. This is a serious problem, and it puts the entire process on hold. Might I suggest that if someone gets to work on the article they try to find a bunch more sources and write a bit more text? Drmies (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

  • ToI source mentions:

"In 2006, KMC gave us the responsibility for maintenance of the park and nearby boulevard. In these years, we have tried our best. Now, with Times Foundation, we have been able to restore it to its full glory," said Swami Sarvabhutananda.

At that time the Bronze status was installed. The Telegraph has some details on it. --Tito☸Dutta 22:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There remain significant issues with this nomination, and despite notification that there were grammatical and other problems still needing copy editing, nothing has been done to fix them. They remain quite severe. There are also source disagreements in various areas. As Drmies has pointed out, FN1 (Telegraph article) says in May 2005 that the original marble statue dates from 1966, while FN2 (Times of India) gives 1961 as the date (and just says "whose statue", not that there has been more than one). The two Telegraph sources give seemingly contradictory indications of future events: FN1, from May 30, 2005, says that the bronze statue would be installed "next month"; FN3, from October 18, 2005, says that the bronze statue would be unveiled on October 29, 2005. No source says that the statue was actually installed or unveiled: you should really have something that says it has happened—something more than a very blurry picture. Tito, I don't understand why you say that the bronze status was installed in 2006, since the 2006 date in the quote doesn't match the 2005 dates from the sources; indeed, the quote seems to be in the context of the Swami saying, effectively, that while the Institute had been given responsibility for the park in 2006, it wasn't until years later in 2010 that the restoration was done thanks to the Times Foundation funds. (Is the Times Foundation any relation to the Times of India, which is the FN2 source?) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • 1) See The Times of India for information on ToI. 2) I have changed the installation year to 2005. 3) A source says the park was renovated in 2006, so, that part is in source. 4) Just for information (off DYK) Golpark (Gol=circular park) is a small park with a radius of hardly 50 metre, and the park is just 4km from the place where I live, there was/is only one statue there. It was decided to have it inaugurated by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. But, right before the inauguration something happened in India (most probably a terrorist attack, bomb blast or something so and Prime Minister cancelled the tour. Unfortunately I can not remember the incidence, else I could find out the exact year easily. This was widely covered in Bengali newspapers (I remeber clearly). But, where shall I get those newspapers now? --Tito☸Dutta 04:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Tito, the only possible source in the article now for 3) would be FN2 (the Times of India source), because it's the only source you're offering that's post-2005, yet it says nothing about the park being renovated in 2006. (The Institute was given responsibility for the park in 2006, but the article doesn't mention a renovation in that year, or even that they did simple maintenance: "we have tried our best" doesn't sound very encouraging in that regard.) If you mean another source, it would need to be added to the article. 4) If there was something that occurred right before the unveiling of the statue that prevented the Prime Minister from attending, it had to happen in the period between the announcement in the paper and the planned day of unveiling: October 11–29, 2005. I have no idea what resources might be available to you for a 19-day window less than eight years after the event, but it's important that you find something reliable. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • 3) the ToI source quotes "we have been able to restore it to its full glory" and also mentions "The renovated park has...". It shows after getting responsibility from Kolkata Corporation it was renovated in 2006. ToI and Telegraph are the best of the reliable source. --Tito☸Dutta 06:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Tito, it doesn't show that at all. The ToI source is from May 28, 2010, not 2006. The article makes it very clear that the renovations had started two months prior to when the article was written, not four years. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I have been suggested that there are some information in an RKMIC bulletin, I am trying to collect the bulletin. --Tito☸Dutta 00:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Tito, it's been a week without any action or update from you. The only edits you've made since the day you nominated this, despite all the issues raised, is the correction of the installation date from 2006 to 2005. No copyediting despite specific requests, no other corrections to reflect what the sources say (as pointed out above). Given the complete lack of progress, I'm reiterating my "X" icon from August 12, and plan to close this nomination as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I have not found the books, The recent heavy rain (see here and here) have damaged public life. I went out yesterday in search of the book I mentioned, it took me 2 hours to find a transport (shops were closed). Several areas (including few book shop areas) have been waterlogged. Let me inform you, it is still raining (as I am typing now). If it continues to rain heavily for next 24—36 hours, a large population of the city need to be relocated. I request a consideration, otherwise I have nothing to do --Tito☸Dutta 02:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Tito, I'm very sorry to hear about the severe weather, and hope that the relocations do not become necessary and the rains end. I'm certainly willing to give you more time to find those sources. However, I don't understand why you say "otherwise I have nothing to do", as you have plenty of work to do on the article even without the books you were looking for: the necessary copyediting mentioned by Drmies at the end of July still hasn't been done. If the copyediting is something you don't think you can handle, then you need to find someone now who can help with it. I'd like to see you give these aspects some priority in your Wikipedia editing. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Drmies told he copyedited the article? Does it need to be copyedited again/now? I hope to collect a source as soon as possible. --Tito☸Dutta 06:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, it definitely needs to be copyedited. Why do you think I keep mentioning it, and saying it "still hasn't been done"? If it hadn't still needed copyediting, I wouldn't have been giving those "X" icons. What Drmies said was that the article's grammar "was and is tortured" (note "was", meaning it had been, and "is" meaning it remained a problem) even with the copyediting he was able to do; the Bronze statue section remains especially problematic. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Copyedit work has been done. 1 ref added. --Tito☸Dutta 10:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Eh, yes--I just did it. User:BlueMoonset, I'm done with copyediting but I have no opinion on the matter of the sources. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I did some copyediting as well, Drmies, and some reorganization. (It seemed to me that an "After installation" section was appropriate for the renovation, but I'm not wedded to the idea or the section header wording.) I removed the Prime Minister sentence: as I noted before, it makes no sense to mention a planned unveiling unless it also mentions either that the unveiling occurred or that it was cancelled (due to whatever reason); either case would need to be mentioned plus a reliable source. (If this is found, I'm fine with the information being restored, paired with the new info and sourcing.) For me, the big remaining problem is the discrepancy between the two main sources (FN2 [Telegraph] and FN3 [Times]) on when the marble statue of Vivekananda was first erected: the former says 1966, the latter says 1961. Either a source from the 1960s is added that nails this down, or a note needs to be added to the article that points out the disagreement between the Telegraph and Times dates; only a single note would be needed, but it should be referenced each time 1966 is mentioned. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I am facing difficulties to manage both ref name and ref group in the same citation. There are errors in the page. --Tito☸Dutta 17:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • ALT1 needs reviewing, and the article should be checked. (Both I and Drmies have probably done enough editing that someone else should do the reviewing at this point, and Dr. Blofeld suggested ALT1, which means he can't also review it.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • New enough, long enough, hook fact is fairly interesting, reference checks out, citations are thorough. That image needs to be retaken when you have the time, Tito, but that's not part of the DYK criteria. Good to go! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Swami_Vivekananda_statue_(Golpark,_Kolkata)&oldid=829322860"