Template:Did you know nominations/Shiv Shakti Aksh Rekha
- 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.
The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by BlueMoonset talk 07:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Given the problems with this article, and that the nomination has been open for over three months now, closing as unsuccessful.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Shiv Shakti Aksh Rekha
- ... that the part of longitude 79E which pass over India consist of eight prominent Shiva temples, known as Shiv Shakti Aksh Rekha, and it span over 2,383 km (1,481 mi)? Source: Shiv Shakti Aksh Rekha
ALT1: ... that eight prominent Shiva temples in India sit near 79 degrees east longitude?
ALT2: ... that eight prominent Shiva temples in India sit near 79 degrees east longitude are known as Shiv Shakti Aksh Rekha?
- Reviewed:
Created by Omer123hussain (talk). Self-nominated at 14:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Did you know; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
The hook is quite hard to understand. It's not really a hook but more of a rephrasing of the article's first line. The article also has just over 1000 characters, which is below the 1500-character minimum for DYK. If the article can be expanded further then the review can continue but if not I'm afraid the nomination will have to be failed due to ineligibility. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- The new hook is not suitable at all, not just because it's also not very hooky (see WP:Did you know/Guidelines for more information, but also because the article is still (barely) under 1500 characters. I should also point out that there's a big "orphan" tag on the article that needs to be resolved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Resolved Orphan tag, and expanded the article. :) Omer123hussain (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- The article is now above 1500 ch, and revised the hook to make it more hooky :)Omer123hussain (talk)
- Dropping a ping to Narutolovehinata5 and a possible ALT1: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- ALT1: that ... eight prominent Shiva temples in India sit near 79 degrees east longitude?
- I Agree with "ALT1", waiting for Narutolovehinata5. :)––Omer123hussain (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- As Narutolovehinata5 had not responded we can proceed now. :)––Omer123hussain (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
The new hook isn't the greatest but I think another reviewer can take a look at this and do a full review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- added new alt2 Narutolovehinata5, its simple and clear to understand.
- @Omer123hussain: Pings only work if you sign the edit at the same time. Paging Narutolovehinata5. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- My apology, its my bad :)—Omer123hussain (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Omer123hussain: Pings only work if you sign the edit at the same time. Paging Narutolovehinata5. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- added new alt2 Narutolovehinata5, its simple and clear to understand.
- The new hook is not suitable at all, not just because it's also not very hooky (see WP:Did you know/Guidelines for more information, but also because the article is still (barely) under 1500 characters. I should also point out that there's a big "orphan" tag on the article that needs to be resolved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- According to DYKcheck, the article is still under 1500 prose characters (1443), and will need to be expanded further. Please note that all text in the table is does not count as prose per DYK guidelines. There's no point in finding someone to do a full review as suggested above until the article is long enough. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: thanks for your review, I had expanded the article by adding a sectin "Legends" i hope it serves the purpose now. :)Omer123hussain (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
New enough, long enough. ALT1 short enough, sourced and interesting. No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found, no maintenance templates found. QPQ unnecessary. You've left the first paragraph of "Legends" unsourced, I'd like to see it cited before I approve this.--Launchballer 15:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Omer123hussain: Can you address Launchballer's concerns? Z1720 (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Nominator's last edit was Oct 12, and there are still concerns above. Nominator has not responded to ping. Z1720 (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Z1720: and @Launchballer:, Applied citation and accept my apology for delay in reply, which was due to work assingments. :) Omer123hussain (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- The article currently claims that all these temples were constructed 4000 years ago, an exceptional claim that requires a far better source than this; and the language in that source is so poor I suspect it ought to be removed altogether. The other sources are also making tall claims, and given the language similarity between them I suspect some churnalism is going on. There is also a lot of uncited content. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- The claim "temples were constructed 4000 years ago" is cited from two sources 4th and 5th, of which 5th is very much reliable. Regards. :)Omer123hussain (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Please ping me when responding here. The first of those sources is not reliable for an exceptional historical claim. The second may be, but as far as I can see does not contain the title of this article nor the names of a handful of temples that I checked; can you provide a quote supporting this claim? Please note that your current block, even if it isn't lifted, doesn't prevent you from responding here. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: I was curious about this, as the 4000 years seemed extremely unlikely. The temples concerned were generally constructed in the 5th centuary, so at best we're talking well under 2000 years. Accordingly I've removed the claim, and as the source now appears unreliable I've replaced it as well. It should be good now. - Bilby (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Bilby: Thanks for removing that; I remain concerned at the unsourced text in the table, as well as about OR in general; see the use of this source for the claim that "Historians and archaeologists had initiated a research program to explore the mysterious construction of theses temples in the single geographical alignment", for instance. As you're evaluating this user's block, I assume you saw my ANI report: I've found verifiability issues in a lot of content they have written, and I'm certainly not going to approve this myself without a more detailed source check. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: I do agree that they have had an issue with sourcing, although I'm still evaluating the extent, on the simple groun ds that there is a lot of content to run through. I'll work through this and see what I can do, simply as a matter of interest and the broader process. - Bilby (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Bilby: Thanks for removing that; I remain concerned at the unsourced text in the table, as well as about OR in general; see the use of this source for the claim that "Historians and archaeologists had initiated a research program to explore the mysterious construction of theses temples in the single geographical alignment", for instance. As you're evaluating this user's block, I assume you saw my ANI report: I've found verifiability issues in a lot of content they have written, and I'm certainly not going to approve this myself without a more detailed source check. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: I was curious about this, as the 4000 years seemed extremely unlikely. The temples concerned were generally constructed in the 5th centuary, so at best we're talking well under 2000 years. Accordingly I've removed the claim, and as the source now appears unreliable I've replaced it as well. It should be good now. - Bilby (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Please ping me when responding here. The first of those sources is not reliable for an exceptional historical claim. The second may be, but as far as I can see does not contain the title of this article nor the names of a handful of temples that I checked; can you provide a quote supporting this claim? Please note that your current block, even if it isn't lifted, doesn't prevent you from responding here. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- The claim "temples were constructed 4000 years ago" is cited from two sources 4th and 5th, of which 5th is very much reliable. Regards. :)Omer123hussain (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Given that the nominator is currently blocked from editing articles and has not edited since Halloween, the nomination can probably be closed as unsuccessful. If anyone is willing to adopt this nomination and address any concerns, however, feel free to state so and the nomination can continue. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, isn't adoption effectively what Bilby is doing, per the above posts? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- That can work, but the adoption has to be formally stated and the issues still have to be addressed before this can be approved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't normally work in this area. If it helps, I'll take care of this ) I formally adopt the article, and I'm checking every source before we progress. I'll be done within a day, but I like to make sure that I have read every source refered to and confirmed that it says what is claimed. - Bilby (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- That can work, but the adoption has to be formally stated and the issues still have to be addressed before this can be approved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's fine. Let us know when the work has been completed and this will be ready for a re-check. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- The article has been tagged with a {{Hoax}} template; this is a more appropriate icon, given the article's current state. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Given the circumstances, probably time to close this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)