A fact from Vanita Jagdeo Borade appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 May 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Vanita Jagdeo Borade has been called the "Snake Woman" for having rescued more than 50,000 snakes?
A fact from Vanita Jagdeo Borade appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 May 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Vanita Jagdeo Borade has been called the "snake woman" for having rescued more than 50,000 snakes?
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article was created or improved during the following events hosted by the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
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 article was created two days prior to being nominated, so it counts as new. At around 1900 characters, it is also long enough. The article appears to be neutral and is free of copyright violation issues according to Earwig's Copyvio Detector. One paragraph is unsourced, which makes for a large portion of the article in relation to its overall size. The content of this paragraph also seems to stray away from the subject of the article. These issues have to be addressed. The hooks are concise, interesting, and sourced, but for some reason the fact is repeated twice in the article. I recommend cutting out the repetition. The word "president" should not be capitalized; see MOS:JOBTITLES. The article currently contains one image too many relative to its size, leading to the contravention of MOS:SANDWICH. While not a deal-breaker, I recommend removing one image to make the article layout more presentable. In my opinion the portrait with the snake would make a fine lead (and hook) image given that it illustrates what the subject is known for, but I see no indication that its copyright belongs to the Government of India, i.e. that it is free to use on Wikipedia. This must also be clarified. Surtsicna (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph source and repeated hook have been addressed. Joofjoof (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request that the word "must" should not be used so freely in reviews. The image has not been clarified even though it "must" be. It has been removed instead.... and MOS:sandwich is suddenly a DYK requirement?? which "must" be addressed presumably. The word "must" does not encourage collaboration. We are improving Wikipedia because we want to (not because we "must"). Victuallers (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I do not understand the defensiveness. Improving Wikipedia is not a must, but neither is passing a DYK review. There certainly are things that must be done for an article to appear on the Main Page. WP:DYKRULES uses "must" 18 times. One of those musts is that the nominated article must meet Wikipedia's copyright policy. Removing the image is fine as far as DYK is concerned. MOS:SANDWICH was not cited as a requirement. I was very clear about it not being a deal-breaker. Surtsicna (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that there is a growing tendency to assert when a request is more than adequate and a quick change to the text is ideal. The reviewer is not "in charge" but a collaborator. I am not defending the article or myself or fellow contributors but I'm trying to prevent reviews turning into trials. (or attacking you!) The process does need to be defended. There is no "must" as we can all walk away. I much prefer to see errors fixed rather than listed, you may feel that changing President to president is important to itemise but I'd encourage anyone to just fix it. Victuallers (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now what you mean. I much prefer making the changes myself, but very often the major contributor feels a tad bit possessive so with some things I try to suggest first. Surtsicna (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Review requested please. This is an interesting lady who I think should be on the main page. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Victuallers, I tried copyediting some parts of the article and feel it needs a sentence or a two more. DYKCheck currently says it has 1499 characters. If addressed, I might go ahead reviewing this nomination.─ The Aafī(talk) 00:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TheAafi Thank you. Sorry it dipped to 1499, its now 1838. Victuallers (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Victuallers, I again made some changes in the article and feel it is okay. It passes DYKCheck. No copyvio and no unreferenced stuff. The article was new enough at the time of nomination. QPQ provided. However I suggest a change in the hook. Are you happy with any of my suggested hooks? I'd be happy if you suggest some modifications?
ALT1... that Vanita Jagdeo Borade(pictured) received an award from the president of India for her conservation work, which included rescuing over 50,000 snakes?
ALT1a... that Vanita Jagdeo Borade(pictured) has been called the first snake rescuer woman?
ALT1b... that Vanita Jagdeo Borade(pictured) has been called "The Snake Woman" for rescuing over 50,000 snakes?
Thanks for your contributions. I have copyedited the hooks, but I'm fine with all/any of them. Let the picker pick Victuallers (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is good to go. I'm personally inclined towards Alt1b however I'm leaving the hook choice for promoter. ─ The Aafī(talk) 23:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Victuallers, please while you upload the images on Commons again, please make sure you indicate the source explicitly. It took me several hours to verify ths image was legit because you hadn't indicated exact source (link). That said, the earlier reviewer's note is thus addressed and the DYK is completely okay and ready. ─ The Aafī(talk) 19:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TheAafi Thank you for the review. I did make a mistake and I'm sure your advice to check to see if I have made a mistake may help me in the future. I'm sorry if it caused you a lot of work as the sources can be tricky to find. I appreciate that you perservered. Victuallers (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
The article was created two days prior to being nominated, so it counts as new. At around 1900 characters, it is also long enough. The article appears to be neutral and is free of copyright violation issues according to Earwig's Copyvio Detector. One paragraph is unsourced, which makes for a large portion of the article in relation to its overall size. The content of this paragraph also seems to stray away from the subject of the article. These issues have to be addressed.
Review requested please. This is an interesting lady who I think should be on the main page. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
This is good to go. I'm personally inclined towards Alt1b however I'm leaving the hook choice for promoter. ─ The Aafī (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
