Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Sunehri Bagh Masjid

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 00:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Sunehri Bagh Masjid

(
)

Created by TheAafi (talk). Self-nominated at 11:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sunehri Bagh Masjid; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • Not a review, and I review oldest first so I probably wouldn't touch this for at least another month and a half (but would not object to any other editor doing so in the interim): The Times of India is not a reliable source.--Launchballer 14:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
    • Launchballer Thanks for the note. Times of India is not the only source to support the fact. I have changed it on this nomination to The Indian Express, which is considered reliable. I will rework on the article and try removing TOI resources although the two sources are unlikely to fall under what is considered "unreliable/biased" on this publication, but I take your note. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
      • In my opinion, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS should apply with regards to the reliability of TOI for the part of content sourced from there. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
The context is that the hook should be cited to a reliable source. Full review needed.--Launchballer 09:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Launchballer, The hook is of-course cited to reliable source. See WP:INDIANEXP and also WP:THEHINDU. I had added the link to Indian Express piece this nomination, and in the article the fact is also supported by a TheHindu piece. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
My apologies, that should have said 'which it now is'. Full review still needed.--Launchballer 16:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi: Thank you for your work on this article. Please consider rewriting ALT0, and creating new hooks. The phrasing of "that Sunehri Bagh mosque in New Delhi has been recommended to be demolished for resolving traffic problems" doesn't work for me. The original wording in the current article is must better, so I don't know why you went with this instead. Viriditas (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
@Viriditas:, thanks for the review. I tried to re-think and the following hooks appear in my immediate thought. Do you have any ideas? I'd appreciate your assistance. ─ Aafī (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: @TheAafi: Please focus on providing better sources in your hooks. For example, ALT0 is poorly sourced (the cited source doesn't really support it) and ALT, ALT2, and ALT3 don't show sources on this page. Remember to make sure that there is a close parity between the proposed hook and the source, with no interpretation required by the reviewer. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
    Viriditas, I'm sorry that you've had to struggle with this, and indeed I should have been clear and revised the sources. The hooks are based on multiple sources. Citation 14 in the article rightly supports the fact, "the NDMC had recommended the removal of the 150-year-old mosque to the HC “for safe and smooth flow of traffic”, citing that it falls in a high-security zone where Parliament and Central government offices are located." The same citation should work for anything related to proposed removal. ALT3's other part is verified by Citations 2 and 7 in the article. I hope this helps. ─ Aafī (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, thank you, that's quite a different picture altogether, and it clears up a lot of questions I had. You have me curious though. Why, if you have all these great hooks in the article, are you rewriting them for the nomination? I mean, even up above, where you quote and write "the NDMC had recommended the removal of the 150-year-old mosque to the HC 'for safe and smooth flow of traffic', citing that it falls in a high-security zone where Parliament and Central government offices are located"--that's perfect material for a great hook; why aren't you using it? The hooks you are using here don't have the same information or interest. Try writing a hook in your own words that says just that. I'll pass it. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
    Viriditas, I returned to DYK after a long break and perhaps this is the reason and answer to your question. Some more homework and here is what I have gotten into my mind. ─ Aafī (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I think you've almost got it. Regarding the discussion about the WP:TOI up above, I think Launchballer was very wise to remind you of the issues surrounding it. Looking closer at how you use it in the article, I don't see a problem, and since I am more liberal than other editors when it comes to sourcing (provided they are used correctly), I am inclined to allow it as there is no consensus on the larger matter, but you should be aware that other editors may disagree and this could impact future article improvement efforts. I will continue the review. Viriditas (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I have finished reading the article. I am not as familiar with the variant of English used in this article (Indian English?) so I will not be making or recommending any grammatical changes. The article is a very nice read, but the only thing that stands out in my mind is the paucity of content in the lead section. While it is certainly true that this is perfectly acceptable for small articles nominated for DYK, and most of the time this is not a problem, I think that in this case it could lead to neutrality issues, since the lead indicates that the mosque is in imminent danger of being torn down. But when we read the article, we see that, putting politics aside for a moment, that the mosque is not in danger of being torn down at the moment. I think some effort should be made to expand the lead to clarify the nature of the problem at hand by giving more context. This could be done by more accurately summarizing the main points. Other than that, I am almost ready to pass. Viriditas (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Viriditas, you've caught the very right thing. My English is mix but the article should be using Indian variant. I have modified the lede and summarised some information there. ─ Aafī (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Awaiting new hooks to approve. Earwig doesn't show anything consequential but random spot checks reveal instances of close paraphrasing that need to be resolved. The Indian Express writes "Of the four roundabouts studied, the report found only the Sunehri Bagh Masjid roundabout did not need any interventions." This article writes, without quotes "According to Indian Express, the removal proposal issued by the NDMC contradicts a 2021 traffic study submitted by the Central Public Works Department which found that the Sunehri Masjid roundabout did not need any intervention." Best practice on Wikipedia is either to quote the material or to paraphrase it, neither of which are the case here. Obviously, this is very minor, but this kind of thing needs to be fixed, especially if it can be found elsewhere in the article. So go back and make sure you are either quoting or paraphrasing. (Issues resolved) I like what you are trying to do with ALT4a, but you could shorten it considerably if you desired. There's also potential for other hooks as well. Also please use the Source: My source here format next to your hook proposals so that others don't have to hunt for your sources. (Issues resolved). Re-reading the hooks up above, I still think the language can be improved. I struck ALT0 because it just doesn't work in English, and I struck ALT3 since it was sourced to TOI and that's a non-starter for a hook. I also struck ALT1 and ALT2 per comments below. Viriditas (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Viriditas Thanks for the review. I have re-worked on this part in the article and also included a source for the Alt4 and 4a above alongside sourcing it in the article. ─ Aafī (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Let's see what you've got:
... that the New Delhi Municipal Council proposed the removal of Sunehri Bagh mosque for a better traffic management? (The Hindu)
Typically in the US, when we are talking about removing a structure to improve road conditions, we say it is to relieve traffic congestion. I don't think we should use this hook because as you explain in the article, this proposal is both challenged and contradicted by another proposal which says otherwise. This kind of hook can be problematic when the content says otherwise and it only presents one view. So I will strike it. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
... that Sunehri Bagh mosque in New Delhi is subject to a demolition notice from the New Delhi Municipal Council for a better traffic management? (The Hindu)
"Subject to a demolition notice...for a better traffic management" is closer in intent, but grammatically sounds off to me. You could always go with "to relieve traffic congestion", but this again brings us back to the problem with ALT1. So I would strike this as well. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
... that New Delhi Municipal Council had proposed the removal of a 150-year old mosque "citing that it falls in a high-security zone where Parliament and Central government offices are located"? (TheHindu)
Putting a link to the New Delhi Municipal Council before the article will steal views and result in less people visiting your article. I won't strike this, but I will recommend that you do. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
... that a 150-year old mosque in New Delhi was recommended to be removed for existing in a high-security zone and reportedly creating traffic snarls? (The Hindu)
I think this is one of your better hooks so far, but still needs work. For example, you could also word the hook in a way that says the proposed demolition of Sunehri Bagh Masjid, a 150-year old mosque with a Grade-III heritage classification, was challenged in Delhi High Court. There are many different variations of this, but the point I'm trying to make is not to just assert the proposed demolition, but to show that it is being actively challenged per the article. This makes for a more accurate and neutral hook. Another way you can approach this is to show how there are competing proposals, one for demolition and one for preservation. That would make a great hook with much interest for our readers! The NDMC proposed to demolish the mosque to relieve traffic congestion, while the earlier CPWD traffic study found no problems with traffic congestion. That's a bit more complex to word, but as you can see, there is an infinite diversity in infinite hook combinations available to you. Play around with it and find one that you like! Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Viriditas. I take your notes and have instantly worked on the following hooks. Let me know if these work? ─ Aafī (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@TheAafi: Please add "a" to ALT4b so that it reads "... that the proposed demolition of a 150-year old mosque with a Grade-III heritage classification in New Delhi was challenged in the Delhi High Court?" I can't approve my own hook, so if you like that, I will need to pass this review on to another reviewer. I was hoping you understood that I was just giving you examples to work with, not actual hooks. But if you prefer ALT4b, let me know, and I will ask someone else to review this. As for ALT5 and ALT6, I think you're getting close, but 1) you shouldn't use a link before your hook because it steals views (delink NDMC), and 2) we can't really use abbreviations like NDMC and CPWD in a hook because nobody will know what they meant. Again, I think you were taking my suggestions way too literally. Ideally, what I want you to do is get creative and come up with hooks that are unique to your own formulation. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks once again Viriditas, I have taken some more time to go through all of our conversation and formed few hooks by getting out of the box. I will try forming some more tomorrow once I get free (I have a major occupancy tomorrow). Meanwhile, if you find any of the following hooks interesting (some are just re-works of previous ones), please let me know. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
  • @Viriditas:, do you have any opinions on any of these hooks? I'd personally like to work on Alt7a? Looking forward to your guidance. Best, ─ Aafī (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
  • @TheAafi: Good job on ALT7a. I would make minor grammatical adjustments, and remember, if you are directly quoting someone, you have to use quotes, you can't loosely paraphrase the quote simply be removing one of eight words. So you could try something like "that the proposed removal of a 150-year old mosque in New Delhi for relieving traffic congestion was described as a 'constant attempt to erode medieval architecture'", but you should instead think of bringing the historians you are citing into the hook. Try something like "that historians oppose the removal of a 150-year old mosque in New Delhi due to alleged concerns about traffic congestion?" Now, don't use that hook, because I can't review a hook I submit, but I did want to give you an example of how to word or approach your own version that you eventually write and choose to use. Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
  • @Viriditas: Made some slight changes in Alt7a. Does this work for you? ─ Aafī (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
  • ALT7b ... that the proposed removal of Sunehri Bagh Masjid in New Delhi for relieving traffic congestion was described as "a constant attempt to erode medieval architecture" by a national body of historians? (TheWire)
  • Alt7c ... that the proposed removal of a 150-year old mosque in New Delhi for relieving traffic congestion was described as "a constant attempt to erode medieval architecture" by a national body of historians? (TheWire)
  • @TheAafi: The trick is to keep in mind all the different variables (sourcing, quoting, hook length, active voice, interest, etc.) when you write the hook. As you can see here, so far, your hooks focus on one or the other variables, but don't include all of them. From looking at that hook length page, I see where this could go. A short to medium length hook (70-150, if possible, but not required), combining your two chosen ideas: 1) New Delhi Municipal Council's proposed removal of the mosque due to traffic congestion, and 2) opposition from historians who cite the cultural significance of the mosque. Figure out how to best say that using all of the above variables, and we will be done here. Viriditas (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
  • @Viriditas: Do you happen to have a suggested hook based on what I have tried to say in Alt7c. I tried to work with some ideas but I'm not able to come with anything better than what I have tried to say here. It has a less number of characters as compared to previous one. Perhaps, a workaround like this. ─ Aafī (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  • @TheAafi: There’s not much else to say at this point. Try applying everything we’ve talked about to ALT7d. Ask yourself, is it too wordy? Are there any words I don’t need? And regarding grammar, are there any words you do need? And as for quotes, is it better to paraphrase or to quote directly? When you finish addressing these, then look to see that the hook is cited in the article appropriately. Then, you’ll be done. Viriditas (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  • @Viriditas:, I believe it is too much wordy, and I have tried to work on it in Alt7e.─ Aafī (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  • @TheAafi: That's very good. I think you should go with ALT7e, but I'm not certain about the use of "decry". It's accurate of course, but I'm worried that it could be viewed as POV, so why not just use more neutral language like "oppose", eliminate "proposed" (it's not needed), change "relieving" to "alleged" (since the claim and the evidence supporting it are challenged and questioned) and you're done. Now, after doing that, check the article to make sure ALT7e appears and is fully cited at the end of the sentence. Viriditas (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  • @TheAafi: Since this is happening right now, shouldn't it be historians "oppose" rather than "opposed"? Or am I wrong on this? It looks like it could be argued either way. Make sure it is cited in the article and I will pass. Viriditas (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  • @Viriditas:, you are right, however, I feel oppose works better. I have modified it in Alt7f and I also find it finely referenced in the article. Best, ─ Aafī (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Alt7d ... that a body of historians described the proposed removal of a 150-year old mosque in New Delhi for relieving traffic congestion "a constant attempt to erode medieval architecture"? (TheWire)
  • Alt7e ... that historians decry the proposed removal of a 150-year old mosque in New Delhi for relieving traffic congestion citing its cultural significance? (TheWire)
  • Alt7f ... that historians oppose the removal of a 150-year old mosque in New Delhi for alleged traffic congestion citing its cultural significance? (TheWire)


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Prefer Alt7f. Good work on this hook. Viriditas (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Sunehri_Bagh_Masjid&oldid=1209251579"