Talk:P. Kodanda Rao

P. Kodanda Rao has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 2, 2023. (Reviewed version).

A fact from P. Kodanda Rao appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 February 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Indian independence activist and author P. Kodanda Rao's correspondence with Mahatma Gandhi helped to clarify Thoreau's influence on Gandhi?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/P. Kodanda Rao.

Wikipedia

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Did you know nomination

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 97198 (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Indian independence activist and author P. Kodanda Rao's membership application to the Servants of India Society was initially declined because he was too young? Source: https://archive.org/details/righthonourablev00pkod/page/478/mode/2up
- ALT1: ... that when Indian independence activist and author P. Kodanda Rao's membership application to the Servants of India Society declined he temporarily became a botany professor? Source: https://archive.org/details/righthonourablev00pkod/page/478/mode/2up
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/801 Grand

Created by Ktin (talk). Self-nominated at 08:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - The source is an WP:ABOUTSELF statement from the book jacket of Rao's biography of Srinivasa Sastri. While it's a permissible use of ABOUTSELF, the full statement made in the article, which mentions Srinivasa Sastri as the one who rejected him, fails ABOUTSELF criterion #2. So I don't think it's suitable to base a DYK hook on.
Interesting:

QPQ: - Needed
Overall: @Ktin: Still need a QPQ for this, and need either a third-party cite that verifies the proposed hooks, or an ALT2 that doesn't have the ABOUTSELF issue. (Even setting aside criterion #2's applicability, I think ABOUTSELF claims without in-text attribution should generally be avoided in DYK hooks.) His friendship with Gandhi and his marriage both have content that could make for good hooks. Overall it's an interesting article and I'm hoping we can resolve this smoothly. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Let me look for some more sources. Else, there is always the Gandhi / Thoreau hook to fall back on. I am out tomorrow and am somewhat constrained in availability through the weekdays. So, if I can get some time through the weekend that would be much appreciated. Ktin (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am just resurfacing today after a busy week. I have not been able to get a different source. I have been giving this some more thought, this should be attributed to the publisher of the book since it is an author bio. However, if this is not acceptable, we might have to go for something like --

ALT2: ... that Indian independence activist and author P. Kodanda Rao's correspondences with Mahatma Gandhi helped clarify Thoreau's influence on Gandhi?
ALT3: ... that Indian independence activist and author P. Kodanda Rao's correspondences with Mahatma Gandhi helped clarify the origins of Gandhi's non-violent civil resistance ideas?

My first preference is to go for ALT0. Happy to hear the reviewer's views. Ktin (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: Renumbered above to avoid duplicate ALT1s.) @Ktin: So, first off, I slightly misspoke: ABOUTSELF doesn't directly apply since the claim wasn't self-published. That said, there's not necessarily a huge amount of editorial review for an "about the author", so I agree in-text attribution is needed. One way to do that here would be

ALT4: ... that Indian independence activist P. Kodanda Rao wrote a biography of V. S. Srinivasa Sastri—who, according to Rao, once denied his membership application to the Servants of India Society?

That's the least clunky wording I can think of that satisfies in-text attribution, and personally it doesn't sound great to me, but it's serviceable. I'm happy to consider more in this vein, or if you like ALT4 specifically I can request someone else review that hook. Or I can just approve this with ALT2 and ALT3 once a QPQ is provided. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Let's go with ALT2 and call it good. QPQ added. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QPQ is valid. ALT2 is interesting (I don't think "special knowledge or interest" is required to know who Thoreau is, or at least have a vague sense of him not being a contemporary of Gandhi's) and verified in article.

approved for ALT2. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 05:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:P. Kodanda Rao/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DreamRimmer (talk · contribs) 17:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one for you. Expect comments within a few days. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 17:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, I haven't seen anything amiss and am double-checking all of the additional points. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 12:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Career

In second paragraph's second line, please change He accompanied Sastri to the Round Table Conferences in London and in South Africa. to He accompanied Sastri to the Round Table Conferences in London and South Africa. (or simply remove the in from South Africa)

Done

In second paragraph's fourth line, please change He was also the member of the Indian delegation to the Round Table Conferences between India and South Africa in 1926 and 1932. to He was also a member of the Indian delegation to the Round Table Conferences between India and South Africa in 1926 and 1932. (or simply alt the article with a)

Done

In third paragraph's last line, please change In one of those letters Gandhi clarified the role of Henry David Thoreau in shaping Gandhi's views on Civil resistance. to In one of those letters, Gandhi clarified the role of Henry David Thoreau in shaping his views on Civil resistance.

Done

The fourth paragraph of the career section had some grammar issues, so I fixed some. Please check, and if everything is okay, then replace it with the below paragraph.

Rao wrote extensively in various journals on topics relating to Indians overseas, emigration, and immigration, and Indian politics under British Rule. Writing in The New York Times in 1935, he decried the Government of India Act 1935 as limiting and preventing the country from moving towards freedom and a dominion status. He also wrote books including East vs West: Denial of Contrast, Culture Conflicts: Cause and Cure, and Foreign Friends of India's Freedom. Rao's book, Foreign Friends of India's Freedom, was a collection of broadcasts commissioned by the All India Radio on the 25th anniversary of India's independence. Rao was the recipient of the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award in 1963.

Done

Why are there double and in the following paragraph? If it was left by mistake, then it should be corrected.

Rao wrote extensively in various journals on topics relating to Indians overseas, emigration, and immigration, and Indian politics under the British Rule.

Done

In the last paragraph of the career section: Please replace Rao also served on various governmental committees including serving on the Madhya Pradesh Prohibition Enquiry Committee (1951) set up by the Government of Madhya Pradesh. with Rao also served on various governmental committees, including the Madhya Pradesh Prohibition Enquiry Committee (1951), set up by the Government of Madhya Pradesh.

Done. Thanks for the very detailed notes. Have covered all of them, I think. Ktin (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

First paragraph's last line read: He also dedicated his book Foreign friends of India's freedom to his wife.

Please add a comma after First paragraph's last line read: He also dedicated his book

Done

Please fix book name: Foreign friends of India's freedom to Foreign Friends of India's Freedom

Done

Published works

Checked. all okay.

References

References checked by me (see data below)

Reliable/Statement covered: checked Y
Reliable/Statement covered: checked Y
Reliable/Statement covered: checked Y
Reliable/Statement covered: checked Y
Reliable/Statement covered: checked Y
Reliable/Statement covered: checked Y
Reliable/Statement covered: checked Y
Reliable/Statement covered: checked Y
Reliable/Statement covered: checked Y
Reliable/Statement covered: checked Y
Reliable/Statement covered: checked Y
Reliable/Statement covered: checked ✗ Fail Heuristics resolved as likely dead (Please replace with reliable sources; if the issue is temporary, then no changes are needed.)

Might have been temporary? Have added an archive link - please have a look. Ktin (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable/Statement covered: checked Y
Reliable/Statement covered: checked ✗ Fail Connection failed or remote server error (Please replace with reliable sources; if the issue is temporary, then no changes are needed.)

Might have been temporary? Have added an archive link - please have a look. Ktin (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable/Statement covered: checked Y
Reliable/Statement covered: checked Y
Reliable/Statement covered: checked Y
Reliable/Statement covered: checked Y
Reliable/Statement covered: checked Y
Reliable/Statement covered: checked Y
Reliable/Statement covered: checked Y

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
pass

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
no issues

C. It contains no original research:
checked, no issues.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
checked, Both a manual spot check and a copyvio detector encountered nothing.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
checked, no issues.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
focused on the topic, pass
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Pass, no issues.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
checked, no edit-wars.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
no issues, pass

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
checked, no issues.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

@DreamRimmer: Many thanks for this very thoughtful review. I will work on this in the next couple of days, and will share an update. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DreamRimmer thanks for your patience. I think I have addressed the feedback. Please have a look and let me know if I can help with any additional edits. Ktin (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work @Ktin, promoting it as GA. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 05:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.