Template:Did you know nominations/1966 anti-cow slaughter agitation
- 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 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) 04:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Many issues still to be addressed, and no response from nominator despite many pings; closing as unsuccessful
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
1966 anti-cow slaughter agitation
- ... that an attack on the Indian Parliament by a Hindu mob in 1966 led to the most violent riots in the country since Independence in 1947? Source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43697306
5x expanded by Winged Blades of Godric (talk). Self-nominated at 14:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC).
-
- This is not a review but that lead is way too long. per WP:LEAD, it should be a summary of the article, not a point by point description of the event. The maximum number of paragraphs is generally four. Another useful link to read: Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section. Cowlibob (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- This is not a review but that lead is way too long. per
Full review needed. Note to Winged Blades of Godric: you'll want to address the two "clarification needed" templates. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)- @csdnew00:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- What this needs is a full review by a reviewer, not a response from the nominator. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- csdnew12:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- @csdnew06:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- n - Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- Other problems: - Non-neutral use of the word, "mob."
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Positive points: On 19 December the article had 6,518 bytes, on 26 December (nom date) it had 33,708 bytes. It was therefore expanded 5x in good time. The copyvio detector is timing out at the moment, so I have given the benefit of the doubt. The source for the hook has a paywall, so I have taken that in good faith. The nominator appears to have two DYKs, so I understand that there is no need for a QPQ here. Negative points: (1) I agree with above comments that the leader needs to be rewritten and shortened. (2) A number of citations require corrections (newspaper article titles missing). (3) The article needs to be checked for neutrality, e.g. the use of the words "mob" and "saints" in the leader, and the words "tremendous," and "brazen," in the main text. (4) There are questions/tags about verification and neutrality in the Cow slaughter and religion section. Conclusion Overall, I fear that the article in its present form may appear to show disrespect to those who revere cattle. The hook might well be good clickbait, but the use of the word "mob" may be likely to offend a large section of the people of the Hindu faith. With all these problems, and the fact that the nominator has not responded to the above comments, in my opinion this nom should be closed as suggested above. Storye book (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Several sources have a weird title "ACTUAL ARTICLE TITLE BELONGS HERE". This should be fixed and updated with... the actual article title.
- @Headbomb: I have already said that in the above review.
I have now put it in bold so you can see it, butit's not the most important thing in the review. Storye book (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
The previous review ticked everything except neutrality so I'm taking that on good faith. There has been no attempt by the nom to address any of the neutrality issues raised, or indeed to edit the article in any way. The "clarification needed" tags have not been addressed and, in addition, the article has since acquired a "failed verification" tag and a pov tag (in sections unrelated to the previous issues). In short, the article has gone backwards while under review. I'm ignoring the comment about missing fields in references. That is not necessary for a DYK – it is only necessary that the source is identifiable, and hence verifiable. SpinningSpark 13:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
