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
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.
@Dharmadhyaksha and Mehedi Abedin: The article has a citation needed tag and needs copyediting for sentences such as "Parents of Choudhary and Sarojs have been MPs/MLAs and of Jatav have been deputy sarpanch", "The 14% strength of women in Lok Sabha is considerably short", etc. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: The tag wasn’t' there when I was inspecting the article as a reviewer. Also the article was good to me in that time and it was edited many times by many users and ip after review. Mehedi Abedin11:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this needs to be rephrased. '33% of MPs will be required to be women although new Lok Sabha has only 14%?' It's 33 percent of MPs are mandated to be women, not 33 percent of women MPs; there is a fundamental difference. Will Thorpe (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This hook feels really wordy, which is why I think it hasn't been promoted yet. Is there any way to trim it a bit? What about this? ♠PMC♠ (talk)02:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So wait, basically the hook is that the percentage of female MPs is less than what's mandated by a law that isn't even in force yet? I'm not sure I find that particularly surprising or intriguing. ♠PMC♠ (talk)19:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.... its way less that what would be required by maybe next elections. I understand the hook is becoming un-interesting as we are being factually correct. Hence i was using "will be required" and skipping the part of "when will it be required". If you have any other suggestions, we can think of those too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dharmadhyaksha "The 14% strength of women in Lok Sabha is considerably short than the 33% which will be required after the Women's Reservation Bill, 2023 is enforced after the delimitation of constituencies happens post this 2024 elections." That sentence doesn't make much sense without context. Consider rewording it to flow better like the original proposed hooks. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it needs copyediting, let's not give it a tick yet. Noting that Mehedi Abedin used a non-standard non-substituted tick icon that the bot doesn't understand; please use the standard icon codes located above the edit window in order to properly approve a nomination. Many thanks. Also pinging AirshipJungleman29, in case they want to add that approval icon after the copyedit is completed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open for almost two months. The copyedit was in July and hasn't happened yet. Just foreshadowing that I'm about to close this nomination as unsuccessful. Schwede6622:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyediting tag was placed on last day of July!! Its been only 5 days since then. And why do we have so many bosses at DYK these days who are actually not helping the nomination in any way? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have too many nominations and try to get rid of stuff that's stale. This is the oldest open nomination. If you get on with it, then all's good. Schwede6606:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]