Template talk:Did you know/Ayudhapurusha

Ayudhapurusha

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as 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 Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle}

... that weapons (mace pictured) are sometimes personified in Hindu art?

Reviewed: A2 (Croatia)

5x expanded by Redtigerxyz (talk). Self nom at 16:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a comment and signature (or just a signature if endorsing) after each aspect you have reviewed:

Hook

Length, format, content rules:
Source:
Interest: Original not interesting. Perhaps use the 50 sons and magical weapons? Oh, I see Panyd's suggestion, which is better than the original. Tony (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image suitability: Tony (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ALT hooks, if proposed:
- Alt 1: ... that weapons, like the Ayudhapurusha (pictured), are sometimes personified in Hindu art? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ayudhapurusha is not a weapon like a sword or spear. It is the human depiction of any divine weapon like a mace, bow, sword etc. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- ALT 2: ... according to Hindu epic Ramayana, Jaya gave birth to fifty ~~powerful~~ magical divine weapons?--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Looks better: the text says "magical", which is hooky. ... to 50 magical divine weapons?" The ref tag is there for ALT2; does it match with the current pic? Tony (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The pic should be excluded. As Gada (mace) is a woman-weapon not part of the weapon-sons of Jaya. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article

Length:Tony (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vintage:Tony (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing (V, RS, BLP):Tony (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality: Looks OK Tony (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarism/close paraphrasing: On trust with the book. Tony (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio: Tony (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious faults in prose, structure, formatting: Not bad. Needed the dash script (please see edit summary). Tony (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/discussion: You could remove the orphan tag. Tony (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]