Template:Did you know nominations/Tourist attractions in Udaipur
- 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: rejected by Fuebaey (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Tourist attractions in Udaipur
[edit]
- ... that the Sajjangarh Biological Park, one of the Tourist attractions in Udaipur had received more than 46,000 visitors in a month, generating a revenue of Rs 14 lakh for the forest department, which is a record in itself?
- Reviewed: Sajjangarh Biological Park
5x expanded by Vishal0soni (talk). Nominated by Vishal0soni (talk) at 06:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC).
Dan arndt (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
This nomination is extremely confusing as it is for Tourist attractions in Udaipur however the hook appears to relate to Sajjangarh Biological Park. The nominator indicates that they have reviewed Sajjangarh Biological Park however there is no DYK for Sajjangarh Biological Park and on top of that Sajjangarh Biological Park was created by the nominator.
If the nomination is for Tourist attractions in Udaipur then it fails the DYK criteria:
- The article is too old and is not a 5x increase
- The article contains numerous empty sections
- There are also a number of significant statements within the article lacking inline citations
If the nomination is for Sajjangarh Biological Park then the following comments apply:
- The article is new enough created two days before nomination
- The article is relatively short (approx 1,700 characters) if you exclude the table of fees & charges (which appears to be more travel information/guide) but mets the 1,500 criteria. I would prefer to see more substance to the article as it is a borderline stub article.
- The article contains a number of grammatical errors
- There are also a number of significant statements within the article lacking inline citations
- The article contains a number of local terms that should be linked, to enable readers to understand what is being described.
- The hook is relatively wordy (coming in at almost 220 characters) and tries to pack in too much information.
- In respect to the hook, as the reference indicates that the park was only open for two months the early attendance figures are always likely to set a record as there is nothing to compare against (apart from the preceding month). ·
Actually i am still in processing of gaining better understanding of the DYK nominations, and worked on this as an initial try. I was not sure about the nomination title, but as per your suggestions, i plan to do it for Sajjangarh Biological Park. I would work upon the article further, make corrections and add more content as per your suggestions. Thanks. Vishal0soni (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I will leave it up to you Vishal0soni. Just note that there is a time limit between when the article is created and when the DYK is lodged. I would suggest you that you withdraw this nomination and lodge a new one for Sajjangarh Biological Park. Dan arndt (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)