Template:Did you know nominations/Byculla to Bangkok


 * 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: rejected by Allen3 talk 10:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues

Byculla to Bangkok

 * ... that Byculla to Bangkok is a non-fiction book about the gangsters of the Indian metropolitan city of Mumbai?
 * Reviewed: Rachel Mahon

Created by Ethically Yours (talk). Self nominated at 16:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Hook short enough and appropriate, at approximately 1870 characters, article is long enough, neutral and hook is cited.


 * Symbol question.svg However, the "Critical reviews" section is almost entirely direct quotations; (see here) they ARE properly cited and attributed, (yay!) but at 550 characters, it is nearly 1/3 of the article.  I am unsure how marginal this makes the nom and will consult some folks on the matter.   Montanabw (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Generally, reviews should be paraphrased rather than quoted extensively, with perhaps a short phrase quoted if it can't be expressed in any other way. There was one very long quote that I have put in a blockquote per WP:Blockquote; since such long quotes do not count as original prose for DYK purposes, the article is too short at 1355 prose characters, and will need expansion. I was also wondering about the sourcing: mpositive.in looks like a blog (if the story is copied from bangaloremirror.com, then that's the source that should be used), and mumbaiboss.com talks about user submission and how they may be untrustworthy, which makes we wonder whether it can be considered a reliable source. The Critical reviews section makes two upfront assertions: that the the book "received fairly average to negative reviews" and that the prequel was a better story. Neither of those assertions are backed up by the two sources in the section, which is a problem. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If the source meets the criteria of WP:NEWSBLOG it can be a RS, just saying. But if BlueMoonset is correct that extensive quotes don't count toward the character total, making the article too short, then that is another concern. I'm striking my character count for now.  My suggestion is that you can go in and expand/improve this article and then ping me to come back and look it over again.  I believe the nomination will stay "live" and remain DYK eligible for awhile, so long as there appears to be active work on the article.  Good luck!   Montanabw (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Article now has more than 1500 characters.  Ethically  Yours! 03:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg By javascript I'm getting 1507, excluding all the headers, foonotes, refs, etc. So technically that is OK.  However, the issues raised by Blue Moonset about sourcing, above, still need to be addressed.   Montanabw (talk) 06:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg It has been twelve days, and nothing has been done to address those issues I and Montanabw pointed out. This needs to happen soon; I've just repinged the talk page of Ethically Yours. At this point, we need to hear something within a week's time. I have done some minor copyediting, and DYKcheck now pegs the article at 1454 prose characters, so it needs work regardless. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Sadly, and regretfully, I must fail this DYK nom. I believe the creator is offline for RL reasons, which is unfortunate, but no one else has taken over the article to address the issues raised.  Fortunately, if the editor wishes to take this article to GA, then there is one more bite at the DYK apple possible.  Best wishes!  Montanabw (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Montanabw, see User talk:Ethically Yours for the details. I have no idea when Ethically Yours might be able to come back; as you note, there doesn't seem to be anyone to take over. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that, that's why I posted here. Wasn't sure if it was copacetic to post details, though. Montanabw (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)