Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Abul Kalam Qasmi

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 SL93 (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Abul Kalam Qasmi

(
)

Created by TheAafi (talk). Self-nominated at 17:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC).

  • Sorry the DYKcheck tool highlights that this has been 'In the news' so I don't think you can also have it here. Notified creator on their talk page. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Chidgk1, articles featured as "recent deaths" are exempted from this, they are not "bolded links" on ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I've clarified the issue on my talk page. Articles that have appeared in the RD have been approved for the DYK in past. See for example this Tim Samaras. I'd seek a new review. The DYK I linked was approved by Muboshgu. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

TheAafi, you proposed an alternate hook for Julie Wera, but that was not a review – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Muboshgu, I was thinking that I missed something, lemme do that. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Muboshgu Thanks for that info which I have passed on at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Shubinator/DYKcheck#Bug_or_rule_change . Wow QPQcheck shows you have been busy - but it does not show Julie Wera. Are you doing this review or am I? I don't mind which of us does it but I will need a QPQ shortly so need to know if I can count this or not? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Chidgk1, this review is all yours if you want to do it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Long enough and new enough, checked Earwig no copyvio Chidgk1 (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  • I put "Nazr-i" and "Shakhsiyat awr Adbi khidmāt" into google translate but it could not translate them. Could you add the translated titles to biography? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with you that the hook is interesting. Have you a better one or what do you think of my suggestions? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Chidgk1 I have translated the titles in Bibliography. What do you mean by "made novels fun in Urdu"? Can you explain that to me? Thank you. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Well if I understood you right the word "fun" in "Novel ka Fun" is the English word "fun" not an Urdu word meaning "aspects"? Not a great hook - maybe you can do better?
  • : ALT4 ... that Abul Kalam Qasmi was called 'The Father of Pen' for his literal contributions in the Urdu literature?
  • Comment: "ALT1: Abul Kalam Qasmi made novels fun in Urdu" doesn't make any sense. Qasmi translated Forster's book Aspects of the Novel in Urdu under the title "Novel (Novel) ka (of) Fun (Aspects)" (Aspects of the novel). IMHO, this is the best hook for both English and non-English redears. --Gazal world (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Ah now I see. It was the previous version of the infobox which referred to "The Fun of Novel" which confused me. So now I understand "fun" is an Urdu word meaning "aspects". Chidgk1 (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
    Chidgk1, You can call it my bad. I confused the word "Fun and Art", the Urdu word fun isn't as same as English one. So "Novel ka fun" would literaly mean "The Art of Novel". Aspects of Novel is a similar name thus. I've rephrased the ALt6, ideas? ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I prefer ALT5 because I am trying not to tell the reader too much but hook them in, but if you really don't like that we can ask another reviewer. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  • I would prefer ALT0. Short and interesting. --Gazal world (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
well I suppose most of the other dyk are also boring so okChidgk1 (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
@Chidgk1: Good to go. --Gazal world (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
@Gazal world, Chidgk1, and TheAafi: Which, if any, of the hooks are approved, and has the article been reviewed for the nom at all? This whole discussion looks like a debate over the accuracy and interesting-ness of the "fun" (mis?)translation. Kingsif (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif:, the first one has been approved by the reviewer. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
They put a tick on the first hook at the end of the discussion. You can see it over there. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Yoop. The first one. --Gazal world (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@Gazal world, Chidgk1, and TheAafi: Ok, so, a hook review needs to be done, you can't just pick one and tick it. It's also recommended to strike any hooks that aren't approved. And you haven't confirmed that the article has been checked for meeting requirements. The only thing I can see actually done here is a QPQ. Kingsif (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Chidgk1 did review this review where he had pointed the ITN issue and continued with the discussion and then approved one of the hooks. This is a messy approval though. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. @Chidgk1: please note that Sorry the DYKcheck tool highlights that this has been 'In the news' so I don't think you can also have it here. Notified creator on their talk page. isn't a sufficient review. Kingsif (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Review needed. Kingsif (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Kingsif They did say just below few lines that Long enough and new enough, checked Earwig no copyvio. Where does that go? ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Ideally the whole review goes in the comment with the approval. Unless there are other floating review comments, we still need to check the article is sourced, that the hook fact is in the article, that it is inline sourced in the article. And, that there are no (more?) translation issues, if possible. Does @Chidgk1: want to do that? Kingsif (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Kingsif Sorry for mess - I had forgotten about this - Thanks for fixing. AafiOnMobile TheAafi Yes all those things mentioned just above are fine. Only problem now is a couple of harv errors for first 2 in biblio. You can see with User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors If you don't know how to fix ping me and I will do for you. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
@Chidgk1: Fixed all the stuff. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
TheAafi OK I did a final read through and am happy with everything - thanks for interesting article. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: assuming AGF for offline sources. --Gazal world (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Abul_Kalam_Qasmi&oldid=1037963642"