Template:Did you know nominations/Debopriya Chatterjee and Suchismita Chatterjee'


 * 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: promoted by  Jolly  Ω   Janner  06:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Debopriya Chatterjee and Suchismita Chatterjee

 * ... that Debopriya Chatterjee and Suchismita Chatterjee, popularly known as "flute sisters", are Indian artists in the instrumental music of flute trained by guru Pandit Hariprasad Chaurasia (pictured)?
 * ALT1 ... that Debopriya and Suchismita Chatterjee, the "flute sisters", are Indian instrumentalists trained by Hariprasad Chaurasia?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Yvonne Ciannella
 * Comment: Created for "Women in Music" editathon

5x expanded by Nvvchar (talk). Self-nominated at 02:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC).


 * Comment only: I have added a more succinct ALT1. As the picture is only okay and is not of them, I've dropped it from the ALT1. Edwardx (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted alt img of the two sisters. Nvvchar . 16:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * DYK checklist template

Comment I have pulled this from the queue because it's clear that no-one has read the article. It is riddled with poor English and POV and needs a serious copyedit before it can be considered for the main page. Incidentally, even the title of the page (which included a rogue apostrophe) was overlooked by both the reviewer and the promoting admin. Standards are dropping. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It would be great to see the issues raised by The Rambling Man addressed, but I would not hold it against the article's promotion. The quality of language used is not a DYK requirement, unless it infringes on other requirements such as factual inaccuracies because it is not understood or POV. I see no POV concerns with this article, but any specific concerns highlighted by The Rambling Man would be good to look at.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  00:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg The article needs a copyedit, and since the plan is to feature it on the main page, the prose should be improved before that point; it is quite rough in places. The names are not even spelled consistently, and the enormous initial block of text should be properly divided into paragraphs. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * File:Suchismita Debopriya SISTERS.jpg seems dubious. Its original file version looked like a poster and it was the uploader's only edit at Commons.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  05:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I have divided the article into sections and copy edited. Please see. I had cropped the original image. Nvvchar . 05:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * My point was that the poster was likely to be a commercial work of art and probably not made by the user in question. Cropping it makes no difference.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  05:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Deleted alternate img in the hook and in the article. Nvvchar . 06:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nvvchar, sorry I missed your earlier post about dividing the article into sections as I requested. Thanks. However, the copyedit was not adequate—I think you need someone else to do it for you, perhaps the Guild of Copy Editors. Also, the facts don't quite seem to jibe with the sources in a number of places. For example, the article says that their riyaz has won them accolades. Neither cited source says this: it is their playing, not their practice. Also, so far as I can tell, they didn't provide the background music scores, but played in them—it doesn't say they wrote the music, and there's also nothing that says they were the only musicians performing. And it says they're the only popular flutists in India, which is extremely unlikely. All such discrepancies needs to be fixed. I also think some of the paraphrasing is a bit too close: the "lecture-cum-demonstration" bit, for example. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It has been copy edited with some additional references and text by SusunW. I have added her name to the credit list. Please see. Nvvchar . 01:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg The article still suffers from poor grammar and incorrect spelling. This issue has not been resolved. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  10:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the spelling mistakes and done some copy editing. Plm see. Nvvchar . 09:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I wasn't fully satisfied by Nvvchar's corrections (although they were definitely a step in the right direction), so I have done some copyediting myself. This article now needs a fresh pair of eyes to go over it. —♦♦  AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  21:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Given that Doug Coldwell originally gave this article a green light despite all of its initial problems, which caused its promotion to be reverted, I think we need to have another reviewer do the final check, and also post more than a solitary tick. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg I have completely re-reviewed the article. The length and date of expansion both check out fine. Checks reveal no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing; only cited quotes flag up at all. The hook facts are both moderately interesting and cited in the article. I've made some further grammatical tweaks to the article, but nothing major. I wouldn't use the image as myself, given that it isn't of the subject of the article, but the image is free and appropriately licensed. Harrias talk 08:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)