Template:Did you know nominations/William Hastie

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 14:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

William Hastie

(

)

~~... that according to legend, Swami Vivekananda was first introduced to Ramakrishna in a literature class given by William Hastie (pictured)?~~

Reviewed: William Humfrey

Created/expanded by Solomon7968 (talk), Sidhu Jyatha (talk), Victuallers (talk). Nominated by Solomon7968 (talk) at 19:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC).

Article is 1431 characters, short of the 1500 required for DYK. If you expand this, please provide more detail about the subject's accomplishments, rather than just biographical information. Also, please expand on the legend, as these terms (Vivekananda, Ramakrishna) are unfamiliar to most readers. Yoninah (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The article was at 1727 characters "readable prose size" according to DYK check. However I have expanded the article further (now 2053 characters (322 words) "readable prose size") to make his notability clearer (which he is for his Kant scholarship). Also restored "Swami" in the hook, now context should be clear. Solomon 7968 05:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Per Rule 2a, the character count does not include lists, such as the Bibliography section. Article is now long enough, new enough, adequately referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Hook ref verified. QPQ done. I would suggest, however, that you identify the people mentioned in the hook, e.g.:
ALT1: ... that according to legend, Swami Vivekananda was first introduced to Indian mystic Ramakrishna in a literature class given by Scottish theologian William Hastie? Yoninah (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I will however go with [[Swami Vivekananda]] rather than Swami [[Vivekananda]] (the article was recently moved, wrongly imo) in ALT1, short descriptions will definitely help. Solomon 7968 15:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I went to approve it, but just improved it. Should assist with a review. Victuallers (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements, I added your name for the DYK credit. Solomon 7968 15:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the "improvements". Numerous grammatical and spelling mistakes were added, and a few paragraphs appear in hidden text but not in the article. The article now needs a copyedit, and also a section dealing with Hastie's improprieties in an NPOV way. I tweaked the hook link in ALT1 to Swami Vivekananda, although the page is Vivekananda. Yoninah (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It is tricky to understand, I'm sure a copy edit would help. The two hidden para's are based on whether the source is maybe stretching the truth - I didnt understand where they had gone initially. Hastie did not commit any improprieties as far as I know, he falsely accused a young teacher of being illigitamate and promiscuous - that may have been a good faith accusation given the social values at the time. More recent NPOV views by academics belief he was driven by pride and jealousy. The views in the article include the Church of Scotland, the Indian, English & missionary communities; and a High court view of what happened. I'm not sure how it could be more "NPOV". Are you sure this should not be a conversation on the article talk page? Victuallers (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC) I added a pic Victuallers (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the copyedit. By NPOV, I meant that the section on his libel charge and imprisonment should stand out in a separate sub-section, which I did. Now there's just the matter of the hidden text, to decide whether or not you want to include it in the article. Yoninah (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi @Yoninah - think this needs unsticking. There is a very slow/non existent debate about one section of this article. However the debate is not contentious - if it was then that would be reason to delay or refuse the DYK approval. If you feel strongly about this then change it to the way you want it to be. Is there a reason (a DYK rule?) why this nom has become stuck? Either way happy to amend Victuallers (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right, the article looks in good shape now. The issue with the hidden text has been resolved; it's now in the article, and it looks fine. Hook ref verified. ALT1 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)