Template:Did you know nominations/Keelavalavu
- 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 Allen3 talk 12:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Keelavalavu
[edit]- ...
that a court in Tamil Nadu banned the quarrying activities in the Panchapandavar hill, citing it contains monuments of archaeological importance?
Created by Gfosankar (talk). Self nominated at 07:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC).
Expansion is fine, hook is cited well, I've reworded a statement on the article. Otherwise, good to go. Does the hook need to be modified? Replace 'it contains' to the ' the presence of', and does Madras High Court need to be linked here?--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The hook is not supported by the sources given, and would need rewording in any event as there's something not quite right with the final clause. The two sources given for the "citing" phrase are a Times of India article that talks about a two-week temporary freeze on mining (not a permanent ban) while it says nothing about the court making a statement about the archeological importance of the hill, and a list of Tamil Nadu monuments. Indeed, none of the sources referenced in the paragraph say what the court cited, though they do give the arguments of the petitioners. A new hook is needed, and a source that specifically says that the court did make a permanent ban, and if you want to characterize their reasoning, then that has to be in the source as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- I rewrite the section and added a ref. From The Hindu, Writing the judgement, Mr. Justice Vasanthakumar pointed out that Article 49 of the Constitution mandates the State Government to protect every monument or place or object or artistic or historic interest from spoliation, disfigurement, destruction, removal, disposal or export. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfosankar (talk • contribs) 17:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Two weeks temporary ban issued in interim order in 2008, but ordered permanent ban in 2011 final judgement. --Gfosankar (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- A temporary ban is also a ban. I checked that first. The hook can be modified. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- ALT1: ...
that an archaeological monument in Keelavalavu, were vandalised by the quarrying activities?--Gfosankar (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- ALT1: ...
- I don't see where any of the sources say that the damage was caused by the quarrying activities as ALT1 states; it certainly isn't in FN4 or FN7 (the two The Hindu articles from 15 May 2013 and 29 April 2011 respectively), the only place where vandalism is mentioned in the article. The articles do mention damage, but not the cause. The word "vandalised" is a strong one and usually implies deliberate intent to destroy or ruin; the word "damage" is more neutral. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- ALT2: ...
that a hill in Keelavalavu has ancient sculptures and inscriptions?--Gfosankar (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- ALT2's pretty boring. Why not do a version of the original hook, now that it has better sourcing? Something like:
- ALT3: ... that the Madras High Court banned quarrying activities on or near a hill in Keelavalavu because it contains a monument of archaeological importance?
- The hook's "Madras High Court" could be wikilinked, if you'd like. It doesn't have to be, though. —BlueMoonset (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Reviewer needed for ALT3 hook. (I think the sourcing is okay, but please be sure to check it!) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Article is new enough, long enough, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. QPQ done. I am confused by the presentation, however. If you're calling the page Keelavalavu, after the village, I would think you would say something about the village itself. Otherwise, the article doesn't satisfy D7. (Some information about the village and its practices can be found in footnote 4.) As it is, the article mostly describes the cave. In the lead you call the cave "Panchapandavar Malai or Panchapandavar Padukkai", but in the description, you call it "Panchapandavar hill (hill of five Pandavas)". Which is it? Regarding ALT3, the sourcing is OK but the hook could be pepped up a little. The Hindi headline indeed uses the term "vandalised", so the article text is accurate on that score. Yoninah (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
