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) 05:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
... that the cremation pyres built for Thai royal funerals(example pictured) symbolize Mount Meru, the Hindu centre of the universe? Source: "Built to represent Mount Meru, the center of the Hindu universe, it will embody the highest of Thai arts and architecture..." (NYT)
ALT1:... that the royal cremation ceremony for the late Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej(example of cremation pyre pictured) takes place today? Source: "Thursday, 26 October, will be the royal cremation day and it has been declared a public holiday." (Public Relations Department)
Comment: Sorry, this is a little over a day late; I hope it's still okay under supplementary rule D9. Please consider ALT1 together with a date request for 26 October.
Created by Paul 012 (talk). Self-nominated at 12:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC).
Thai royal funeral chariot
Please also consider this image (to the right) for ALT1. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd forgotten about the image-appearing-in-the-article requirement. Never mind this one. I've modified ALT1 to use the same picture. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Article is new enough (1 day late not an issue), long enough, and no copyvio issues. For citations, you could use a citation in the "Royal Funeral Chariots" section, and the first paragraphs of the "Funeral Processions" and "Cremation" sections. I recommend the first hook because it 1) is more interesting and 2) contains a clearer image. The image for the hook looks good, but it needs to be included in the article too. My only other comment is that I'm not sure if the glossary section is appropriate. Would you be able to instead link to the relevent wiktionary pages throughout the article? Looking for a second opinion here because I'm not familiar with glossary sections here. --NoGhost (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Current lead image Citations added. The image shows pretty much the same view as the current lead image in the article, which is higher quality, but due to its wider crop and less direct lighting wouldn't be as suitable as a DYK thumbnail. I could replace the lead image until it appears on DYK and switch it back later, but that would seem like using a loophole to circumvent the rules while not really improving the article. I'll ask on the DYK talk page for more input, but personally I think this is a case where WP:IAR could apply. As for glossary sections, they are expressly mentioned as an appropriate use of lists at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists. I think that having the relevant terms covered here is better than offloading the content to Wiktionary, as the explanations can be more specific to the context (rather than mere dictionary definitions), and it's easier for the reader to access. (Almost none of the terms here currently exist on Wiktionary, by the way.) --Paul_012 (talk) 05:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the citations and the link to policy for glossaries. Looks good to me now. For the picture, I agree that the suggested DYK picture works better in small format. I suggest inserting it into the article perhaps after the historic photo of King Mongkut's cremation pyre where it fits with the article content decribing Mount Meru.--NoGhost (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I've tried to fix the image artifact a bit, and substituted it as the lead image. (Didn't think having two photos of the same subject was warranted, given the availability of other pictures.) --Paul_012 (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I see no issue with including both images, one for general context and the other in reference to Mount Meru. But this works too, the nom should be ready to go now! --NoGhost (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Moved to special holding area for use on October 26. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Article is new enough (1 day late not an issue), long enough, and no copyvio issues. For citations, you could use a citation in the "Royal Funeral Chariots" section, and the first paragraphs of the "Funeral Processions" and "Cremation" sections. I recommend the first hook because it 1) is more interesting and 2) contains a clearer image. The image for the hook looks good, but it needs to be included in the article too. My only other comment is that I'm not sure if the glossary section is appropriate. Would you be able to instead link to the relevent wiktionary pages throughout the article? Looking for a second opinion here because I'm not familiar with glossary sections here. --NoGhost (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
