Template:Did you know nominations/Shriya Pilgaonkar

Shriya Pilgaonkar

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that in 2012, Shriya Pilgaonkar won a scholarship to do a summer course in screenplay adaptation at Harvard University?

• ALT1: ... that at the 51st Maharashtra State Film Awards, Shriya Pilgaonkar was awarded with the Maharashtra State Government Award for Best Debut and Most Promising Newcomer Award?
• ALT2:... that Shriya Pilgaonkar, known as an actress, decided to become a professional swimmer under 7 and became a gold medallist and state level swimmer under 9?
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Pizza cheese

2x expanded and sourced (BLP) by 991joseph (talk) and Gouravbhosale (talk). Nominated by Mr. Smart LION (talk) at 05:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC).

Previous discussion before full copy edit
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The source say nothing about "winning a scholarship" to Harvard, just that she did a summer-course there. As for ALT1: to me, it looks as if she won one award, but two sources name the award differently? ALT2 seem correct, though not very relevant (it is not swimming which has made her known). Article length is ok. Huldra (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Thanks for editing the hooks, User:Mr. Smart LION, but the problem is in the article: there are things there which I cannot find in the quoted sources. Like the scholarship, like two prizes. Those things were put there by new editor Gouravbhosale (who probably also should be mentioned among the DYKmakes), and must be cleaned up before this article can be promoted, IMO; Huldra (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC) OK, leave the first two hooks. What about the third and last hook? I think the article also meets the criteria for a GAN. What do you think? Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 13:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC) User:Mr. Smart LION: I´m sorry, but I´m not ready to accept this for DYK, as long as there is clearly unsourced statements in the article! And those unsourced statements are clearly "promotional". (Even if those unsourced statements are not in the hook.) The article simply has to be cleaned up, first! And I am not so familiar with the GAN-procedure, but the GANs I have been involved in, have been far, far longer than this. Huldra (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC) *The third hook IS clearly cited with this reliable source. I don't know how you are saying that it's unsourced. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 15:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC) User:Mr. Smart LION, yes, but the article still states that she was at Harvard on a scholarship, etc, (which simply is not in any of the sources I read.) Again: the article *must* be cleaned up, and these promotional, unsourced statements removed. Huldra (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Now I have added a reliable source stating about her Harvard on a scholarship. It's stated in that source. Now what you have to say? Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 18:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC) User:Mr. Smart LION: I say thank you! Now, if you could only clean up the name of that award, and possible some linking-issues (Example: "At the 51st Maharashtra State Film Awards, Shriya was awarded with the Maharashtra State Government Award for Best Debut" both link to the same: the second link should be removed, while Mumbai Film Festival does not have a link, at the moment); then it is good to go!....I suggest with the original hook, Huldra (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC) I've removed both the links from Maharashtra State Film Awards because her name is not mentioned in it. So I have removed the first link also, while on the Mumbai Film Festival article, a merge tag has been placed. Will it be OK to have a link. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 04:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC) It is perfectly ok to link to Maharashtra State Film Awards, even if she is not mentioned in it. (As long as we have another RS which links her to it, and we do). (She is not mentioned in the Mumbai-article. either, but we still link to it!) And it is ok, for the same reason, to link to Mumbai Film Festival (that it has a merge-tag is irrelevant.) I´m still not happy about the sentence "was awarded with the Best Debut Actress award and Most Promising Newcomer Award." It sounds as if she won TWO awards, while, from what I understand, she only won ONE award? It looks as if the award is (formally) called "Best Debut Actress" ...perhaps change the sentence into "was found to be the most promising female newcomer and won the Best Debut Actress award"? Huldra (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)  Done Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 05:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC) Ok, all issues looks resolved; I say good to go, (with original hook: "...In 2012, Shriya Pilgaonkar won a scholarship to do a summer course in screenplay adaptation at Harvard University?") Huldra (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC) The article was at AFD and this revision shows that it was not an unsourced BLP. This 2x expansion is invalid. It needs 5x expansion for the eligibility. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC) But after nominating the article for deletion, the article was redirected to Fan (film). This means that the Shriya Pilgaonkar page did not existed as an article. But on 8 May 2016, the page became as an article. If the page existed as an article when I had created the page on Shriya Pilgaonkar, then the article required 5x expansion. Because the page became an article on 8 May 2016, the article doesn't need 5x expansion. It's like a new article. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 12:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Quoting a DYK rule Former redirects, stubs, and other articles in which the prose portion has been expanded fivefold or more within the past seven days are also acceptable as "new" articles. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Is this rule written somewhere on Wikipedia? How can you proof it? Now it's impossible to expand the article 5x. No more information of her is now available. The article is already been expanded. If you'll proof me where this rule is written on Wikipedia, you can reject this DYK. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 17:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC) I counted this as an expansion, starting from the 10 March, 2016-version (which was basically a redirect), and as such this article fulfilled the requirements. Except for some minutes in January, this article has been nothing but a redir since May 2015, Huldra (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC) See 1b here. - Vivvt (Talk) 03:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC) OK, it's fine now. You can reject this DYK! Expanding the article for 5x more is impossible because no more information is available. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 08:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC) For not satisfying the criteria for the expansion. - Vivvt (Talk) 14:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC) But please don't close the discussion. The article has been nominated for GA. Wait until that discussion is closed. If the article gets seccussful in getting a GA icon, then it would be OK to go within 7 days. Now don't say that this rule is not written in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 17:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC) Will finish the review soon and then we can come back to this DYK, if required. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC) Superseding the above icon with this one to prevent premature closure, since the GA review has already been started. Vivvt, I think it's great that you've taken on reviewing the GA nomination. However, you won't be eligible to also review this nomination assuming you list the article at GA (see WP:DYKSG#H2), so in that case a new reviewer will have to be found. If the article does not succeed at GA, though, you can reinstate your X icon here. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC) Unfortunately, the article is not GA worthy. - Vivvt (Talk) 09:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC) Vivvt, I just ran DYKcheck on the article, and it is a very clear 5x expansion. DYKcheck says so, and the largest the article ever was in any of its previous incarnations was 703 prose characters, which would require an expansion to 3515 prose characters; the article is currently 5967 prose characters, an expansion of over 8x. But even if it hadn't been, a gap of over a year—even several months—means that the article is effectively new; this is what I've always been taught by DYK vets (and now I'm one myself). Any material reused from previous versions of the article would need to be expanded 5x (I didn't see any in this case), but otherwise the normal requirements for a new article (which includes articles replacing redirects) would apply. I'm sorry I didn't check this more closely earlier. At this point, I think the article needs a new full review—there has been a major expansion since the last tick was given, and most of what's there is new. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC) I have nothing against the article or the nominator but if you look at the content thats been added to the article for its expansion, you'll know thats its of a poor quality. Its one of the reasons, I had to fail the GA. If you or another reviewer is okay to get it to main page, then I'll leave upto you guys. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC) Full review still needed. Reviewer should consider the quality of the expansion in their review (note comments by Vivvt above based on the GA review). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC) I haven't even been through the whole article, but I've already found serious issues with this nomination. Basic things check out; it's new enough, long enough, QPQ done, and copyvio free as far as I can tell. However, there are serious verifiability issues. The first hook is not supported by the cite; it says she went to Harvard for a summer school, but it didn't say anything about a scholarship. None of the sources says she enjoys kathak; one of them says she has "early training" in kathak, meaning that she learned it as a child, nothing more. I removed another entirely unsourced sentence. The article is mostly neutrally written, but carries far too many quotes from the subject (which can be a means of promotion). There are also a whole bunch of redundancies; most of the information is in the article twice, including what she's directed and her first few films. I found multiple close paraphrases, which I've taken care of for now, but you'll need to watch out for this as you fix the issues I've raised. Finally, the original hook fails verification, the second is rather boring, and the third is incomprehensible (although personally I think the fact used in the third is most interesting). User:Mr. Smart LION, please address these issues soon; this has been in the list for a long while already. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)  Done As for the quotes, I would like to say that all quotes are OK, because they seem interesting and removing them will make the article too short. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 07:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC) The bit about swimming is still not supported by the source immediately after it; you need to duplicate another source, or move the content around. You also need to change ALT2 to be grammatical: if I did it myself, this would need another reviewer, and I think it has gone on for long enough already. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC) I moved the content about swimming to correct position and as for changing ALT2 to grammatical, it needs help from an editor whose English grammar is excellent. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 09:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Okay, then. I'm proposing ALT3, which would need a new reviewer. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC) I'm afraid this reads more like a magazine article than a encyclopedia, with the still-excessive use of quotes, and the remaining repetition. Rather than the article telling the story, it has Shriya tell her own story, which is not appropriate. Since Mr. Smart LION did not feel confident enough in his own English grammar to modify the hook, it's not surprising that there are still some problematic sentences in the article; I'd recommend requesting a Guild of Copy Editors copyedit of the entire article. When the request is made, mention that as part of the copyedit they should also trim the number and size of the quotations. Once the article is in better shape we can request a new reviewer for ALT3. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC) I've added the entry of the article in the list Guild of Copy Editors. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 04:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• ALT3 ...that actress Shriya Pilgaonkar trained to become a professional swimmer as a child, and won several medals?

The copy edit for the article is now complete. Now a new reviewer can be requested for ALT3. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 05:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I hope no-one minds me hiding previous discussions; it appears we are no longer looking at the same article as when it was nominated. Well done to everyone who has contributed to making this a much better article. At the time of nomination this article was expanded enough, it is now written neutrally with lots of inline citations, I cannot find any evidence of copyright violations. The ALT3 hook is short enough and cited within the article. QPQ done. We are now good to go! ツStacey (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)