Template:Did you know nominations/Manasollasa

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: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Manasollasa

(

)

Dance

... that the Sanskrit text Manasollasa is a 12th-century encyclopedia covering topics such as garden design, cuisine recipes, veterinary medicine, jewelry, painting, music and dance (pictured)?

ALT1:... that the 12th-century Sanskrit text Manasollasa is an encyclopedia and includes food recipes popular in modern times (pictured)?
Reviewed: Carmela Teoli
Comment: This article was spunout from Someshvara III; the spunout article and expansion of the old is well over 5x the original.

5x expanded by Ms Sarah Welch (talk) and Nvvchar (talk). Nominated by Ms Sarah Welch (talk) at 07:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC).

I may be miscalculating things, so I'm listing this as {{DYK?}} instead of {{DYKno}} for now, but I don't believe this article has been expanded 5x. The spun off article as of February 12 had 8103 characters and 1302 words. As of right now, the article has 12825 characters and 1975 words. That's barely double the words, and only a quarter more characters. So unless I'm calculating things wrong, this was not a correct 5x expansion.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 02:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Amberrock: Sorry for the confusion. The original article on February 11 2016, was Someshvara III only (old article's perm link). It had ~1,668 characters. There was no Manasollasa article on February 11, only a redirect. On the day of nomination, February 13, Manasollasa alone had ~12,243 characters (new article's perm link). Expansion ~ 7x. The base starting point should be February 11 version, not February 12. (Old article's edit history). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Ms Sarah Welch, it appears you are right. I'm now doing a full review on this article. Well written, within policy and a QPQ was done. No copyvios were found. One thing I'm not too fond as of right now: the lead is too long and basically an ad verbum repetition of certain parts of the article. If you could spend some time redoing the lead, I will probably be able to give this one a green tick.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 14:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Amberrock: Indeed. Revised. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It's all ready now!—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 18:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)