# Talk:Narada sting operation

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

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. GtstrickyTalk 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)

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)

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 BladesGodric 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 BladesGodric 05:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)