Template:Did you know nominations/Rajinikanth: The Definitive Biography
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Rajinikanth: The Definitive Biography
edit
- ... that a reviewer of Rajinikanth: The Definitive Biography wrote that the biographers of Tamil film actors resembled those "who light a candle to look at the sun"?
- ALT1:... that the wife of Rajinikanth: The Definitive Biography's author Naman Ramachandran said that she had lost him to Rajinikanth (pictured) while he was researching for the book?
- ALT2:
... that Rajinikanth: The Definitive Biography's author Naman Ramachandran found a wrong claim in the Wikipedia article about the actor (pictured)? - ALT3:
... that a mistake found by Rajinikanth: The Definitive Biography's author Naman Ramachandran is still present in the Wikipedia article about the actor? - Reviewed: Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk (film)
Created by Skr15081997 (talk) and Kailash29792 (talk). Nominated by Skr15081997 (talk) at 11:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC).
- I prefer ALT2, but you can reference Naman Ramachandran. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Good to go with ALT2. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Pulled this from prep because ALT2 is without a doubt the least interesting hook imaginable -- wow, an error in a WP article! ALT3 is even worse -- you're knowingly leaving this error in an article??? EEng (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have struck 2 ALTs based on above comments. The link in ALT3 shows an older version of the page and the error requires a discussion on the respective talk page. EEng, thanks for looking into this.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Full review needed: original doesn't say what was checked, from size to newness to neutrality to close paraphrasing, so it's best that everything be checked and mentioned this time. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- New, long enough, and within policy. Article is neutral with a balance of negative and positive critical reviews of the book. No close paraphrasing detected (this tool indicates that a violation is possible, but it takes what is direct quoted in the article for plagiarism). I like ALT1 the best. Image is free; QPQ is valid. 23W 01:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)