Template:Did you know nominations/Naroda Patiya massacre

Naroda Patiya massacre
Created/expanded by Ekabhishek (talk), TheSpecialUser (talk). Nominated by TheSpecialUser (talk) at 10:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ... that in the Naroda Patiya massacre, 97 Muslims were killed by a mob of approximately 5000 people?


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Some serious POV concerns.
 * You didn't forgot to add allegations about Modi's involvement in the State-sponsorship section, but you didn't added the fact that the SIT gave him a clean chit.
 * Various facts have been taken from Human Rights Watch, but you should remember that they are allegations, and you should present them like that.
 * "What a tragedy that the Indian media exploited an event ... should ensure that security and honour of Muslims is not trampled." That only tells how reliable source is Pakistan Observer is when it comes to Indian topics.
 * doesn't says even once that the mob was of Hindus. But your articles says no. of times that they were Hindus. That also proves that the hook is invalid. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 13:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 *  TheSpecialUser TSU 22:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've fixed all your concerns above but just left with point two which will be done shortly. About the Hindu mob thing, I cannot find any sources elsewhere so have removed it from the hook and the article. I hope that there is no problem with the hook now. Thanks for taking time and reviewing :)  TheSpecialUser TSU 23:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ all the fixes stated above. Plus the POVs are fixed now and have removed all unnecessary views by victims as it is an article not a place to pile up what people think. The article is neutral enough to go now. There is just one more issue lift out that one section needs addition about Government's responses which I'll do by tonight unless Vibhi himself does it and helps me. Cheers!  TheSpecialUser TSU 10:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ There are still many instances where HRW claims have been presented as facts. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 10:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You can check now. It is ✅ completely. I went through a find and checked everywhere I used the source. :)  TheSpecialUser TSU 14:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Still not done. See Talk:Naroda Patiya massacre. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 16:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Added the quote and other details about government. Every problem that Vibhi cited is and if there is still POV, please state the sentences on the talk. Thanks!  TheSpecialUser  TSU 22:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Just to avoid confusion between the "Fixed" check and the AGF tick, I'm adding this icon to indicate that the article isn't yet formally approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png New reviewer needed to do a complete review. There is no sign that the original review checked the usual things such as newness, article length (or expansion amount), hook length, hook sourcing, etc. Also, the POV issues should be checked, plus the usual paraphrase checks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This was reviewed initially, but since then it has gone under massive overhaul and NPOV fixes of 300+ edits:  TheSpecialUser  TSU 03:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Current hook is not supported: article says 97 and 790... Big differences. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I read it, the massacre had 97 (supported by ref 13); the 790 figure (supported by ref 32) is the total that includes the massacre and several subsequent days of post-massacre violence, though I'm unclear on whether—from the wording in the Aftermath section where 790 is mentioned—the larger figure is for Naroda only or for Gujurat as a whole. (Refs 32 and 33 say "Gujurat" and do not specify that the 97 are included; perhaps the currently inaccessible ref 34 mentions these 97, though I'm skeptical.) A little work on this section should clarify matters and solve the issue raised by Crisco 1492. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I recall seeing the source with 97, the information doesn't seem to be cited in text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see citations in the "The massacre" section, paragraph 3, after both the second and third sentences, which discuss the number of deaths (second says 94 plus three missing and later added to the dead; third gives the 97 figure). Is there something wrong with those? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Odd, I missed seeing that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a ton for the review! I really fear if I'll have any access to net from 20 so I was desperately waiting for this. What should I do to make this a pass? I'm ready to fix issues. Will a "note" in the lead about the term "97" deaths will be okay or should I bring up more refs in the article for "97 deaths"? There are multiple sources in the article about death of 97 people. (google results too say it: ) :)  TheSpecialUser TSU 00:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the 97 deaths is adequately cited. For me, the problem is in the Aftermath section, second paragraph. While the first paragraph had talked about Gujurat more generally, the second starts out talking about Naroda in particular. And it still seems to be about Naroda by the third sentence, which reads, "According to an official estimate, 1,044 people were killed in the violence – 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus including those killed in the Naroda Patiya massacre." There are problems with this: while you are still apparently talking about Naroda, the next references (following the fourth sentence) seem to assign this number to the whole of Gujurat, and there is nothing that I could see that specifically supports the phrase "including those killed in the Naroda Patiya massacre." Which source makes this explicit connection? But, more important, if the 1,044 number is for all of Gujurat, you need to make that explicit in or before the third sentence I just quoted. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I got it and I've fixed it, perhaps anything else?  TheSpecialUser TSU 03:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Looks good to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)