Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Kothandaramaswamy Temple

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following discussion 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 PumpkinSky talk 11:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Kothandaramaswamy Temple edit

(
)

Created by Vensatry (talk). Self nominated at 17:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC).

  • New (yesterday), long (2100+), within policy. Hook is less than 200 after formatting and interesting. Problem is that the cited source doesn't imply the word "only". It's possible that other structures survived, given this source. I'd have to AGF on the first part of the hook, which I can't translate. (If you can, it would be nice to add a translation in the ref.) czar · · 08:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, was able to translate the source for the first part of the hook but the line doesn't pass verification. Maybe the English translation is meager? It doesn't mention that he joined the army, just that the army didn't "accept him". czar · · 08:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Added a book source. —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks—I can't confirm the quality of the source, but the "only" line checks out. I can't source the army part. Can you please quote the portion you're referencing or change the beginning part of the hook? czar · · 09:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Even if the reference does say that it was the only place intact, we should avoid such claims which could very much be false. Its very difficult to believe that only this temple and nothing else in the whole town remained. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • No need to worry if it's hard to believe. We should go by what reliable sources say. —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Isn't the first part of the hook explained by the source? —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Though verifiability is our policy, common sense should supersede that. Btw, which reference are you using here for this only place bit? The sentence is used twice with refs to India - A Travel Guide published by Diamond Pocket Books and Hindu Pilgrimage by Pustak Mahal. I have no access to e-versions but both are tourist guides. We cant use that for something that should probably be sourced to some meteorological or geographical survey or newspaper or government report or such. I have no objection on using these sources for the Vibhishana-joins bit. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 20:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done. Commonsense here would imply that we should do a little bit of research before posting comments. Though the TOI source may not be satisfactory, the govt. websites should suffice. —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It would be wise to make the reviewer's job easier in the future. For DYK noms, this would mean that compound hooks have their related lines in the article very clearly cited, and even quoted within in the citation. I spent my time translating sources and hunting through PDFs instead of easily verifying the language and moving on. I think you'd have a very interesting hook if you just used that page two of the Times of India source, wrote it into the article, clearly cited it, and nom'd it for DYK here. I'm not comfortable with resting my faith on the travel guide sources for the "only" mention, and I think the hook can be artfully rephrased to avoid making a point of the temple being the single only thing left (which is an extraordinary claim lacking extraordinary proof). E.g., you could mention that the cyclone destroyed everything and the temple was still standing. I don't see a citation for the joining the army part, though I've seen several other alternative, historical, cited anecdotes that could fit in its place. czar · · 05:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The fact that Vibhishana surrendered to the army is clearly mentioned in many sources. The Dina Malar source even explains the cause for it. Do you want to get the statement rephrased as surrendered rather than joined? —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
It's your nom to phrase as you wish. It's not so much what I want, but I'm reviewing the submission by the rules that state that the hook's content must be sourced and accurate (so I can't sign off if the linked source say he surrendered, not joined). The logic should be straightforward. You can either source the surrender bit or replace it with some other sourced bit. czar · · 07:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The source listed with the "surrender" statement says nothing about surrendering, just about seeking asylum. Please quote the part of the source that affirms your intended statement. (Not to beat a dead horse, but I asked for this above and the review is dragging on now.) Two side notes: The cyclone statement lists five sources in two places (and we already determined several don't pass muster)—may want to clean that up. Also the lede doesn't need to be cited if the same statement is made and cited later in the article. czar · · 23:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Come on man! What exactly are you expecting? —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that widely believed to be the place where Vibhishana sought refuge in Rama's army, Kothandaramaswamy Temple is the only place to remain intact after the 1964 cyclone in Dhanushkodi? —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • main hook (not alts). Edited the article to match the sources, and the hook to match the article. All's well. Thanks for your patience, and good work and interim edits on the article! Very interesting topic and hook, even if somewhat apocryphal. czar · · 08:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Kothandaramaswamy_Temple&oldid=1022241790"