Template:Did you know nominations/18th Lok Sabha

• ... that post enforcement of Women's Reservation Bill in India in the next few years, 33% of women MPs will be required although new Lok Sabha has only 14%?

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC). General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

Overall: Approved only for ALT hook proposed by me. Mehedi Abedin (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• @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)

• @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 Abedin 11:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• CN tag is sorted by some editor. @AirshipJungleman29: What do you want those two sentences to be written as? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

Thanks @Willthorpe:! ALT1 & 2 have suggested now. @AirshipJungleman29:, your response is also awaited. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries Dharmadhyaksha, glad to help! Will Thorpe (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

ALT3 ... that although the Indian Constitution has required 33% of MPs to be women since 2023, the Lok Sabha formed in 2024 has only 14%?

@Premeditated Chaos: Well, ALT3 will be factually incorrect as the Reservation Bill is not really implemented yet. It was passed in 2023 and the date of implementation is yet to be decided as there will be delimitation of constituencies after the next Census is completed. Both these major steps (census & then delimitation) are still pending. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@Dharmadhyaksha and Premeditated Chaos: how's an ALT4: ... that India will need to more than double its current number of women in Parliament under a new law? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Fine by me. In fact, much better than what i had framed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@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)

@PrimalMustelid: Sentence has been reworded. Please check and if such minor edits are required, request you to use your discretion under WP:BOLD and do it yourself. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Have your concerns been resolved? @Mehedi Abedin: as the original reviewer can you ensure that this article is approved again, or post below what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Y Looks like there is no issue now. The new hook is okay. Mehedi Abedin 21:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I've tagged one section as needing copyediting; I'll try to remember to get around to doing it myself tomorrow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Waiting for the completion of copyedit. After that I will give tick. Mehedi Abedin 03:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

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. Schwede66 22:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. Schwede66 06:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)