Talk:Narada sting operation

Please Help

Anybody who know about this subject please add WIZRADICAL (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested Merge

Proposal:Merge Narada sting operation andNarada Sting Operation.The problems are that Narada sting Operation was almost singlehandedly created and reviewed by @Winged Blades of Godric: whereas Narada sting operation was created by WIZRADICAL(me in a now inactive account) but has the involvement of certain other editors.I dare not do it myself as I will almost certainly have a bias towards my material.Also Narada sting operation has in my opinion a more developed talkpage(created almost entirely by other users) whereas the page Narada sting Operation does not have a maintenance template(which is there in Narada sting operation).Another problem is the naming conventions (Narada sting operation) is named according to the guidelines whereas Narada sting Operation is not.Pinging@Northamerica1000:@Magioladitis:@Gtstricky:@NewYorkActuary:@Vycl1994: as I need this resolved fast(not Wikipedia:Canvassing asI have pinged people from both articlesFORCE RADICAL (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Well that seems to be my fault. Not sure why I did not see that in the search before I published it. Agree they should be merged. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: What's going on here? As best I can tell, you hijacked this article while it was still a draft, re-wrote some portions of it and then submitted it for review at Articles for Creation. And then some two minutes after submitting your draft for review, you declared yourself to be your own reviewer and accepted it for publication. Am I missing something here? NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gtstricky: No need to accept any blame here. Because it was moved to main space under a title that used different capitalization, there's no way you could have known that the draft had already been hijacked. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@NewYorkActuary:--Yes, as pointed out by me in this edit-summary, the theme of the writing was definitely derived from the draft.I actually choose to start by framing the version in my own way in my PC followed by extensive working in my sandbox(which was later U1-ed).The problem was that media-wiki does not allow sandbox to be moved to article-space.Thus the AFC route!And I was definitely wrong in not asking for a hist-merge which should have been sought.Winged Blades ^Godric 15:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. It looks like we are well on the way to resolving this matter. But just for the record, please allow me to make a few comments. As you might already be aware, the Articles for Creation project is currently under attack from various parties. If those parties learn that some of our reviewers are reviewing their own submissions, well .. it just looks bad. Also, there were other ways you could have proceeded. For example, you might have offered to collaborate with the draft's creator prior to publishing the draft. We'll never know if ForceRadical would have accepted your offer, but at least the offer would have been on record. Or, you could have accepted the original draft for publication and then made your changes immediately afterward. Either approach would have been far more transparent than the one you actually chose. But having said all that, how should we proceed? I propose that you add your new material to the article here and, after that's done, call for an A10 speedy deletion of Narada Sting Operation. Will that be an acceptable resolution? NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@NewYorkActuary:--Yeah, definitely that was just plain bad on my part.As to the merge, see Primefac's offer here.At least the attribution would remain!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Primefac's proposal is essentially the same as mine, but leaves Narada Sting Operation as a re-direct instead of being deleted. And I'm okay with that, provided you'll be okay with me removing the AfC banner from its Talk page (because we really shouldn't be seen as reviewing our own submissions). Is this acceptable? NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

But,I already removed it! Didn't I?Winged Blades ^Godric 16:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you sure did. I should have re-checked before making my last posting. Sorry 'bout that. So, if you prefer to implement Primefac's proposal, I have no further objections. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Will be taking on this tomorrow!Winged Blades ^Godric 18:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@NewYorkActuary:- Done.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 08:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks fror resolving the issue.FORCE RADICAL (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Reference formatting

It would be helpful to include the dates of the newspaper articles cited, not just the date that you accessed them. Yoninah (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vanamonde

Just a couple of general points at the moment. First, the article is short, which is not necessarily a problem at the GA level but raises the question of whether it is truly comprehensive. In particular, I think a touch more background would help. Second, the sources all seem to be dealing primarily with single incidents related to the sting. It would be very helpful to obtain a few sources providing an overview: scholarly sources would be ideal. This would also allow the article to be structured more smoothly. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Overview sources are plentily available in bengali newspapers etc. Due to the recency of the event, scholarly sources are probably absent.Winged Blades^Godric 14:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric and Vanamonde93:I have done a rework of the background and I feel it is more smoother than before. I could not find any scholarly sources, but certain newspapers such as Refs 2 and 3 are interviews and do provide a overview of the incident. — Force Radical ( Talk • Contribs ) 05:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Force Radical:--Thanks for the C/E.But, I'm afraid that this still needs some polishing to be a smooth GA affair.And, some slight more details will prob. be need to be added.I will prob. indulge over the weekend and it'll be a pleasure if V93 does the review.Winged Blades^Godric 05:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Narada sting operation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 23:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Opening statement

Disclaimers: I am not knowledgeable in Indian politics or its dialect in English. I understand the author is on an indefinite "semi-wikibreak," and will therefore be keeping this review On Hold until the nominator or another interested party responds to my comments..

In every review I conduct, make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine.. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

References and prose

This is the comment that I shall leave standing for the time being: This article has an abundance of citations (81 at time of writing), but a comparatively negligible amount of prose for it to support. What has been constructed is a skeleton with no muscles. Expand the article, and I will review that. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done Most of the remaining citations are newspaper reports of the type (So and so was hauled up by so and so investigation bureau and was questioned for so and so hours regarding so and so topic, we speculate so and so will also be hauled up later.), which are not really worth adding to the article. The citations however, are needed to prove that so and so bureau did probe the matter. Additionally, later copyedits have reduced the number of citations to 61. — fr ⁺ 15:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Why is Matthew Samuel being referred to by his first name? WP:SURNAME. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done — fr ⁺ 03:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Background

Could you move the picture of Matthew Samuel up to this section? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done — fr ⁺ 03:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Mention what year Operation West End took place in.

 Done — fr ⁺ 04:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Operation

• Footnote a is not supported by a citation.

I didn't find any specific article explicitly mentioning it. Maybe Winged Blades of Godric can find it. — fr ⁺ 13:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Tells me to insert the cites, right at the moment of writing. Remove that, please. ∯WBG^converse 11:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done — fr ⁺ 10:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• IPS officer What's the IPS?

Linked — fr ⁺ 13:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've substantially edited paragraph three to streamline it and delete duplicate links and restated information.

Okay — fr ⁺ 13:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Release

• A certain part What part. This has no teeth without specifics.

 Doing... — fr ⁺ 13:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I searched, but couldn't find anything more specific than this report. — fr ⁺ 06:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• a nearly two-year lag. Say when.

Vami IV, It is mentioned in details in other sections.... If you insist I'll certainly flesh it out. — fr ⁺ 13:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done — fr ⁺ 06:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Fallout and investigations

• Whilst the state objected to the handling of the probe to CBI, a bench of the Court, presided by Chief Justice Nishita Mhatre subsequently held that whilst the motives of Samuel and the legality of his actions might be debatable, that does not undermine the findings of the sting, in any manner and an investigation by an impartial agency shall be proceeded with. Looooong.

 Done — fr ⁺ 06:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• 3 lakh INR Could you link "lakh" and "Indian rupees" here?

 Done — fr ⁺ 06:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

GA progress

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Umm......As much as I had a responsibility to check the talk-pages, what caused you to not ping me, despite mine being mentioned as a co-nom?
• A good samaritan had merged cites, thus reducing the number of cites to 61.
• At any case, your comment does not make much sense to me and am hearing such stuff for the first time. Pretty much every significant detail has been covered.∯WBG^converse 20:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• At any case, I will indulge in a copy-edit session over the course of morrow.Pinging Vami IV.∯WBG^converse 20:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• Vami IV, it would have been good if you had pinged us. I will be certainly be ready to answer your queries unless RL intervenes. — fr ⁺ 15:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Reply to both: I had assumed Godric would see the changes to the article talk page in his watchlist and that FR30799386 would come back to this in at least several weeks' time. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)