Template:Did you know nominations/Tomb of King Tongmyong

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 Orlady (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Tomb of King Tongmyong

(

)

... ~~that the Tomb of King Tongmyong (pictured) contains the remains of the founder of the ancient Goguryeo kingdom?~~

Created by Nvvchar (talk), Rosiestep (talk), Bonkers The Clown (talk). Nominated by Dr. Blofeld (talk) at 12:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC).

Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Carlos Echazarreta Iñiguez

The article is new enough (5x expansion on May 17), long enough, and well-referenced. The photo is free of license issue. Question about the hook though: are you certain the tomb actually contains the remains of the king? King Dongmyeong died in 1st century BC, but the tomb was built in the fifth century AD after the capital was moved to Pyongyang. I may have missed it, but I couldn't find any source that explicitly says the king's remains are in the tomb. -Zanhe (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Noted the suggestions. I have made slight changes in the lead section to address the concerns and propose the following ALT1 Hook.--Nvvchar. 14:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

ALT1 Hook ... that the Tomb of King Tongmyong (pictured) is one of the 63 individual tombs believed to belong to the ancient Goguryeo kingdom, of Korea given UNESCO World Heritage status in 2004?

ALT1 is GTG. The lead of the article must be changed however. The North Korean nomination also says there are suthenticity issues about the mausoleum of the King. So to say that the remains of the king lie here may not be correct. Ashwin147 (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

To resolve the concern that Ashwin147 mentions, I edited the article lead and I struck through the original hook. --Orlady (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)