Template:Did you know nominations/Shatrunjaya, Palitana temples

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 Miyagawa (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Shatrunjaya, Palitana temples

( Back to T:TDYK )

( Article history links:

• Shatrunjaya
• Palitana temples

)

• ... that Shatrunjaya is a sacred site for Jains, containing hundreds of Palitana temples (pictured)?

• Reviewed: Hans Østerholt and Steindamm Church

Created/expanded by Nvvchar (talk), Rosiestep (talk), Dr. Blofeld (talk). Nominated by Rosiestep (talk) at 00:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ding, ding, ding! Buggie111 (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Are you a bell ringer or a reviewer? What checks did this article pass? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Do I need to plop down the entire criteria and check it off, word for word here? Fine then, if that's what you ask for:

• New: Yes, on Shatrunjaya, Palitana temples don't need to meet the requirement
• Long Enough: Yes, on Palitana temples. Shatrunjaya doesn't need that.
• Cited: Yes.

There? You happy? Buggie111 (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Moderately so, thank you. You should always be giving at least a summation of what you reviewed; among other things, it helps people promoting hooks from here know what has been checked, and what might have been missed. Technically, Shatrunjaya needs to be meet the 1500 prose character minimum as a new article, and the pre-existing Palitana temples article needs to meet that minimum size and also the 5x expansion requirement. As you neglect to mention any checking for close paraphrasing issues, I'm assuming you skipped that required DYK check. I did a few spot-checks in both articles and didn't find any issues; next time you'll know to do it yourself. I've withdrawn my ? icon now that the review is clear, I didn't notice any neutrality issues in article or hook, and the supplied image is properly licensed (via OTRS) and does appear in a hook article (Palitana temples) as required for use in DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)