Talk:Fagun

Verifiability and tone
Hi Rosguill, you added a tag critizing those two points. I am a bit surprised, especially at the tone question. Could you please point out which words or sentences could be considered unencyclopedic? English is not my mothertongue and I might have missed a nuance that causes this impression.

As to the sourcing - I know that sourcing generally is a problem for topics regarding minority issues and marginalized people, especially in a non-historic context. But I think the sources that were added now should be sufficient. I would therefore ask you to consider removing the tag, as it will be very difficult to provide more strong sources. --Kritzolina (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and removed the refimprove tag. As for tone, there are some sentences that come off as a bit promotional, but if you're not a native English speaker I wouldn't worry about it too much: the important thing is that it's in a work queue now and a more fluent editor will eventually take care of it. If I get a chance I may take a crack at it later today. signed,Rosguill talk 17:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will take note of any changes and try to learn. --Kritzolina (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

First publication was on 15th april or 9th april of Fagun newspaper
source support
 * In this article the date of publication of newspaper is given as 15th april 2008 but their is no mention in the reference listed here:- as given in this article as its source|Allindiaaseca.
 * I have found a source which has mentioned The first publication of Fagun as April 9, 2008 source:-| Orissa post

But its not sufficient to prove that on which particular date it is published, if anyone had good source please mention. --Rocky 734 (talk) 10:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)