Template:Did you know nominations/Padma Vibhushan

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Padma Vibhushan[edit]

[[File:|120x133px|Padma Vibhushan medal ]]
Padma Vibhushan medal
  • ... that the Padma Vibhushan is India's second highest civilian award and its medal (pictured) is ranked fourth in the order of precedence of wearing of medals and decorations?
  • ALT1 ... that the Padma Vibhushan (pictured) is India's second highest civilian award?

Improved to Good Article status by Vivvt (talk). Self-nominated at 08:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC).

  • Comment only More concise ALT1 added. Edwardx (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • . The GA article is well written and posted within the stipulated time. Both the original and concise ALT1 hook are interesting, cited and verified/ No copy vio noted. Text is neutral. Image is freely licensed. QPQ is awaited to give green tick.Nvvchar. 12:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • QPQ done now. Article is good to go..Nvvchar. 07:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to promote this, and as I read it, did a light copyedit. The material is very good, but I didn't understand why the detailed information under Regulations was repeated in the lead, so I deleted it from the lead. I also added a clarification tag to a sentence that uses the word "embossed" twice. Personally, I think the hook could be a lot jazzier, like:
  • ALT2: ... that some recipients of the Padma Vibhushan (medal pictured), India's second highest civilian award, have refused or even returned their medals? Yoninah (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: Per WP:CITELEAD, the lead is always bound to repeat the information mentioned in the article which we may not have to cite with the sources. However, I dont think it would be fair to delete the complete chunk just to avoid repeat and let the user read it only through body. I am okay with any of the ALTs but not with the lead deletion. - Vivvt (Talk) 14:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Please SUMMARIZE the material, not repeat it verbatim, in the lead. Yoninah (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, the lead looks much better. I removed cites that were uncontroversial and that were cited in the main text. Reviewer needed for ALT2. Yoninah (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Vivvt: please also take care of the clarification needed tag in the second paragraph under Specifications. "Embossed" is said too many times in that sentence. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It looks great, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)