Talk:Parel Relief

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 Yoninah (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parel Relief

• ... that the 3-metre-high (10 ft) Parel Relief (pictured) with seven figures of Shiva, of perhaps 530 AD, was found in Mumbai during roadbuilding in 1931, and is now in worship at a local temple? Source: "ASI", Archaeological Survey of India information board at the site, 2012

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Milton Tower

Created by Johnbod (talk). Self-nominated at 17:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Note "in worship" is the correct Indian English term (and indeed in other forms) Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • 

    Query: Article is new enough, long enough, neutral, free of copyvio, and has plenty of inline citations. (I feel that it would benefit from some reference cleanup to be a little neater, but it's sufficient for verifiability.) AGF for offline sources. QPQ verified. Image is tagged with CC license, is present in article, and displays adequately. (I feel that File:Monolithic_bass_shiva-2.jpg is better lit to show the relief and displays better at low resolution, but leave the choice to you and/or the promoter.) The hook is neutral but it needs to be reworked a bit. The height is disputed by the article's sources (variously 3, 3.5 and 4-metres) so that should probably be removed from the hook (it's the least interesting fact and the hook is a bit on the long side). Maybe also change "perhaps 530 AD" → "6th century" and move that around to the left side of "Parel Relief"? – Reidgreg (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with "6th century". I don't think the discrepancies over the height can exactly be called a "dispute". Presumably some of the sources weren't allowed to take a tape measure & ladder to it, and guessed. I think it's important to indicate the very large height, & I've gone for the rough average (and also what I think are likely to be the most accurate sources). The name is indeed a name, not a title, and should therefore NOT be italicized - see WP:VAMOS! I think this is the best image at small postage stamp size, but don't really mind. So:

• ALT1: ... that the 3-metre-high (10 ft) 6th-century Parel Relief (pictured) with seven figures of Shiva was found in Mumbai during roadbuilding in 1931, and is now in worship at a local temple? (refs as above) Johnbod (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks very much for the link! I was unaware of the exception for archeology. I've left some other cleanup notes on the article talk page, which can be discussed there. I'm pretty sure that if I passed it now, another editor would pull it from the queue before it reached the main page. If you feel that I'm overstepping, you can request a new reviewer. As for the hook, what would you think of removing the height figure and replacing that with "monolithic"? That's in the article, and it gives a sense of its large scale. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's all art, and things like named manuscripts & so on. I'm pretty sure that if you passed it now, another editor would not pull it from the queue before it reached the main page, having done over 350 of these. I'll look at the notes. I think "monolithic" is too vague & wouldn't convey that meaning to many people. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT2: ... that the monolithic 6th-century Parel Relief (pictured) was found in Mumbai during roadbuilding in 1931, and is now in worship at a local temple?

I feel that this is acceptable except for two minor policy points with the article, regarding the neutrality of Wikipedia's voice: the presentation of a quote and directly instructing the reader (notes on article talk page). I'm calling for a new review in case I'm interpreting this too strictly, and have provided a shorter alt hook for consideration. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• New reviewer requested. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The hooks seem satisfactory to me, and any of the three could be used. I am otherwise relying on the rest of Reidgreg's review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Cwmhiraeth, it seems to me that Reidgreg's review was questioning the article's neutrality in two specific areas, which is why it wasn't approved, not just issues with the hooks. If you believe that the article is fine in terms of neutrality there, please by all means say so and reiterate your tick, but I suspect this hasn't been promoted since because of that ambiguity. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @BlueMoonset: I do not think Reidgreg's view of neutrality is the same as mine. I see nothing objectionable about the article that might cause someone to pull the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case, I'll remove my ? icon so your previous AGF tick stands. Thanks for letting me know. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]