Template:Did you know nominations/Rajiv Lochan Temple

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 12:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Rajiv Lochan Temple

(

)

~~... that the Rajiv Lochan Temple is dedicated to a four-armed form of the Hindu god Vishnu?~~ Source: Cunningham, Alexander (1884). Report Of A Tour In The Central Provinces And Lower Gangetic Doab. Vol. XVII. But the figure is actually one of the common four armed representations of Vishnu himself, with his usual symbols of the club, the discus, the shell, and the lotus
- ALT1: ... that the Rajiv Lochan Temple is visited by thousands of devotees every year? Source: "By the banks of three rivers". The Hindu. 2016-07-21. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2023-10-31. Every year on Maha Sivaratri, the Rajiv Lochan Kumbhmela is celebrated for thirteen days. Festivities begin at Triveni Sangam on magh purnima and culminate on the day of Sivaratri. Besides thousands of devotees who throng the temple, sadhus congregate at the venue to participate in religious activities and give discourses.
- Reviewed: None needed (QPQ-exempt nom #2/5)

Created by AmateurHi$torian (talk). Self-nominated at 12:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Rajiv Lochan Temple; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing: -
- There are no citations for the date of the temple. [1] p. 4 is cited for the date of two inscriptions, but I don't see where it says that. Meanwhile p. 3 does actually date the temple to the 7th or 8th century, so that should probably be cited, unless a more precise source exists.
- Paragraph 2 of § "Description" is unsourced.
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting: - Per the line you quote, a four-armed form of Vishnu is "common", so there's nothing interesting about this hook. Likewise, thousands of devotees visiting a temple isn't remarkable, and if anything seems small. 2,000 a year would be about 6 people a day, even 10,000 only about 30.

QPQ: None required.

Overall:

@AmateurHi$torian: Please take care of the sourcing issues identified (or tell me what I've missed). As to the hook, if you added a bit more detail from [2] to the article, you could do something like

ALT2: ... that Rajiv Lochan Temple's construction has been variously attributed to a historical king, a mythical king, and a god?

But that's just one idea. Happy to talk over other hook ideas. P.S.: Should this be at Rajiv Lochan Temple, or just Rajiv Lochan? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review this!

Fixed sourcing - Added ref for the second paragraph of "Description" section; Also added sources for the date of the temple's construction.
"Rajiv Lochan" (lit. lotus eyed) is a name of the deity, so "Rajiv Lochan Temple" is accurate for the page title.
As for the hook, ALT2 seems good.

AmateurHi$torian (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@AmateurHi$torian: Sorry for the delay. I was away for Thanksgiving and am just catching up on things. This looks fine now, except that as I look further it seems Ratnakar is also mythical? So you could either add a mention to Ratnakar and say that he both he and Jagat Pal are mythical, and we could change the hook to "two mythical kings", or we could just strike "historical king" from the hook (although Jagat Pal's mythical status should be mentioned either way). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 04:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Not a problem at all, and happy thanksgiving! If we're mentioning Ratnakar, we'd also have to mention Jagat Pal by name, and it seems like the hook would become long and uninteresting. This seems better:

ALT3: ... that Rajiv Lochan Temple's construction has been variously attributed to two mythical kings and a god?

AmateurHi$torian (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@AmateurHi$torian: Sure (although I've c/e'd an extraneous comma). But for the hook to verify, you need to mention Ratnakar in the article, and mention that both he and Jagat Pal are mythical. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Done AmateurHi$torian (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@AmateurHi$torian: Thanks. However, that seems to be a close paraphrase of the cited source. Could you please rephrase it? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Done AmateurHi$torian (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Please do be more careful on close paraphrasing in the future. If you find yourself using very specific terms like "boon", or only slightly-modified phrases like "Pleased by the king's dedication" / "Pleased by Ratnakar's devotion", that's usually a sign you're cutting it too close. But, glad we could get that resolved. One last bureaucratic step here: Since this hook is partly of my authorship, we need

another reviewer just for checking hook compliance. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be more careful in the future. "Boon" is unavoidable, as it's the generally accepted translation for the Hindu concept of vardaan (wish granted after a god appears in front of you, as reward for severe penance). AmateurHi$torian (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

ALT3 approved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)