Template:Did you know nominations/List of Padma Bhushan award recipients (1954–1959)

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 Allen3 ^talk 00:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

List of Padma Bhushan award recipients (1954–1959) edit

(

)

Homi Jehangir Bhabha

... that the Padma Bhushan, India's third highest civilian award, was instituted in 1954, and the "father of the Indian bomb" (pictured) was one of its first recipients?

Reviewed: High diving
Comment: Would be nice to get promoted on 30 October, Homi Jehangir Bhabha's 106th birthday

5x expanded by Vivvt (talk). Self-nominated at 19:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC).

I've tweaked the hook slightly, in the interests of concision. Edwardx (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

81 chars on 28 July before current expansion. 3512 char at nomination and currently 4242 char char. Meets length requirement and 5 x expansion. Continuous expansion to present since July meets time requirement. Text is neutral. One instance of possible copy vio:
This "On 15 January 1955, the Padma Vibhushan was reclassified into three different awards; the Padma Vibhushan, the highest of the three, followed by the Padma Bhushan and the Padma Shri" is mirrored from the "Muslim Issues" and either needs to be re-written or marked as a quotation with a proper citation.

Could you please provide "Muslim Issues" link for the copyvio?

Here: [1]

Thanks for the link. This actually is not a copyvio. The muslimissues article was published on May 12, 2015 and has a text copied for Bharat Ratna WP article. See this revision of the article dated May 10, 2015. Done

Technically, it *is* a copy violation but the copyvio was actually them mirroring WP and not vice verse. Thank you for documenting it. SusunW (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

In-line citations exist, with two exceptions. Claim in first line (which must be verified as is part of the hook) that it is the third highest award is not cited in the Gazette, which merely described the creation of the award, qualifications of recipients and its appearance. Also last paragraph is uncited and source citation is required as no "original research", i.e. drawing conclusions, is allowed.

Added source for the third highest award. I dont think the last para falls under WP:OR as its just a condensed and textual representation of the tabular data which is sourced with the in-line citations and thus not cited per WP:CITELEAD. If it was claimed that no one from Jammu & Kashmir was given award during 1954-1959, that could have been WP:OR. Done

Okay, I'll give you that. I forgot this is a list and not an article. Thus, what is usually an uncited lede is cited. And good to go on the third highest citation.

Hook is 157 char, within 200. Above clarification of "third highest award" must be addressed. Additionally, source doc says award created in 1954 was called "Padma Vibhushan" not "Padma Bhushan". (The name change (1955) did not happen until after Bhabha had received it.) Sources do confirm Homi J. Bhabha received it in 1954 and was the creator of the bomb, but citations do not appear with the hook claim. Perhaps you can extend the text under his photograph to state that he was one of the inaugural recipients?

Added "Awarded in 1954," Done

Thanks for adding that, even though the name change did not occur until after he got the award, the document which verifies he was a receiver states he got "Padma PB" (Padma Bhushan) as opposed to PV (Padma Vibhushan) or (PS) Padma Shri. So, based on this rationale, I'm going to say the hook is indeed cited and verified.

Photograph is designated by commons to be PD. QPQ done. SusunW (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: I have addressed some of your concerns. Please let me know in case of doubts. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Vivvt Okay, if you can address the last item, I think we will be GTG. SusunW (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: I hope I have clarified your doubts. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Vivvt I think you are GTG. Good luck on meeting your wished for date of publication. SusunW (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much for the review. - Vivvt (Talk) 19:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)