Template:Did you know nominations/Madhu Trehan

Madhu Trehan
Created/expanded by Ayanosh (talk). Self nom at 05:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ... that Madhu Trehan, an Indian journalist, had to apologise for publishing an article rating Delhi High Court judges?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Annie Martin
 * Symbol possible vote.svg The article reads like a series of facts. It needs copyediting to bring it up to Wikipedia standards both in format and substance. The references are all bald URLs. The image is not showing on the page. Yoninah (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I take all your comments, but the article doesn't lack anything the rules say.So while it certainly is not the best article but it can still be said that it has enough for DYK.On a different note i would have worked on it more, had i more time but i don't.So please have a re-look.--Ayanosh (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to do your work for you? Per Rule D3, at least format the references. Yoninah (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and formatted the references, looked up all your sources, added more information, removed primary sources like publisher's and agents' blurbs, and did a thorough copyedit. I noted in the text where citations or dates are still needed. Yoninah (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the hook, I don't think it's appropriate to highlight negative information about a living individual (cf. The hook (Content)). She has enough positive accomplishments that could be highlighted. Yoninah (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears that no further edits will be made by Ayanosh. At this point, it's up to you whether to pass this or not. I have to admit that I'm not so worried about the "negative information" part of the hook, since when examined it doesn't appear to be so negative, but rather that the Delhi High Court overreacted. The number of "citation needed" tags was a bit worrying. I eliminated one by deleting the "Karamveer Puraskar" mention, since I couldn't find her listed on the award's website; in any event, by DYK rules that one has to be cited. One of the sources the article had supplied other information. You may want to drop her earlier schooling if you can't find a reliable source for it. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I removed the schooling line and expanded the description of her book so this doesn't look like a stub. Here is an alt suggestion:
 * ALT1: ... that in 2001 Indian journalist Madhu Trehan and her colleagues had to apologise to the Delhi High Court for publishing an article rating their judges? Yoninah (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg I think there is some problems with NPOV. Statements like "which ensured ... investigative journalist" and "leading news ... newspapers" doesn't seems to be neutral to me. My another doubt is that how can Tehelka as Metaphor be her best-selling book, when she has written only one book. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 10:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As the page creator is no longer working on this article, I took the liberty of editing the page. However, I don't agree with your comments. It is not POV to say that Trehan's work "earned her a reputation as a top investigative journalist", especially when this statement is sourced to 3 different references. It is not POV to say that Hindustan Times is a leading paper; it is. I did replace "Trehan published her best-selling book" with "Trehan published her first book". It would be nice to say how long the book was on the non-fiction best-seller list, where it debuted at #1, but I am unable to find a source. Yoninah (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Both hooks have been approved. The "three sources" that were supposed to support Trehan's "reputation as a top investigative journalist" unfortunately do not; two have been removed entirely for not mentioning it at all, really; as the remaining one calls her a "pioneer" in investigative jounalism, I've substituted that "pioneering" for "top". The hook facts are sourced in the article. DYKcheck says the article, which was only a day old at the time of nomination, has 2676 prose characters, far over the minimum 1500. Close paraphrasing check made against several sources; a few phrases adjusted accordingly. Article and hook appear to be neutral and not unduly negative; hook is interesting. QPQ completed. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)