Template:Did you know nominations/Sushil Siddharth
< Template:Did you know nominations
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Revision as of 17:08, 25 March 2018 by imported>Dahn
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Sushil Siddharth
- ... that a fellow writer said that satire was oxygen of Sushil Siddharth's life? Source: "सुशील हमारे बीच असंतोष छोड़ गए..." Hindustan (in Hindi). Lucknow. 19 March 2018.
- Reviewed: A Voz do Brasil
- Comment: Also nominated for RD. Let's see what happens.
5x expanded by Skr15081997 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC).
The article is new and the topic interesting, and as far as I can discern it is not plagiarized; QPQ done and appears quite thorough and competent. However, the article needs copyediting for grammar: a necessary "the" is frequently dropped consistently, the word order is strange at times (as in: "he and Ram Bahadur Mishra edited and published a quarterly Birwa dedicated to Awadhi language"), he died of "an heart attack", etc.; the style is also inconsistent, as italics are and aren't used for paper and journal titles; also, does one really use "served" to denote "worked for a magazine"? Other issues: what does "academic criticism" mean in this context? what are Spandan Samman and Madhuban Vyanga Shri Samman? must we have one-line sections (that are actually frowned upon by our Manual of Style), or could we possibly merge his career into one section? in "Maitreyi Pushpa was of the view that his talent could not be used correctly", what does "correctly" mean to say? The hook is also terribly not interesting, but rather the kind of generic polite stuff with a slight metaphorical twist that a writer would say about another, deceased, writer; I would think there's more potential of creating a hook from Maitreyi Pushpa's views, though I'm not sure I understand what she means, and the article would need to elaborate on that tidbit (an exact, lengthier quote from Pushpa?). Also note that the hook is ungrammatical: "satire was oxygen of" is incorrect; either use "was the oxygen" or go with the phrasing actually in the article -- "was oxygen in". Please consider this as purely constructive criticism, Dahn (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)