Template:Did you know nominations/Children's Museum, Siri Fort
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Children's Museum, Siri Fort[edit]
Replica sculpture of Shalabhanjika
... that the Children's Museum, Siri Fort, has a replica image, of the Pratihara period of 9th-10th century, Shalabhanjika (pictured) a voluptuous posture of a woman without hands sculpted from buff sandstone?
Created by Nvvchar (talk). Self-nominated at 07:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC).
- Non-reviewer's comment: More than the "voluptuous" women, which are plenty many in Indian sculptures, a hook related to fasting Buddha, which is rare, would be better. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Dharmadhyaksha Thanks for the comment. I have now proposed ALT1 hook of fasting Buddha.
ALT1 ... that the Children's Museum, Siri Fort, has a replica (of the original sculpture in Pakistan) of the Gandhara art of fasting Buddha (pictured) in skeletal form, from the 3rd century AD Kushan period? Nvvchar. 01:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's not unusual for a museum to have replicas; isn't what's interesting about this museum is that it only has replicas, because the goal was to show the visiting children the full range of Indian culture and history? How about this:
ALT2 ...that all the sculptures representing Indian art and history at Children's Museum, Siri Fort (Gandhara fasting Buddha pictured) are replicas built by university art students?- Taknaran (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- ALT3: ... that the Children's Museum, Siri Fort, has a sandstone sculpture of a woman in the buff? EEng 14:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with the above ALT3 hook suggestion. Nvvchar. 01:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- DYK checklist template
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Passes DYK checklist. Good To Go. Did not detect any copyvio issues. Stuck out the other hooks, as I believe we are all agreeing on ALT3 as it seems simple and straight forward.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not quite sure if this is the right way to check in at this point, but I would STRONGLY OBJECT to ALT3 as inappropriate. "OOOh, look, the children't museum has lewd statues" (one meaning of "in the buff") isn't a great hook to present. I'd like to suggest the following as more respectful of both the museum and the statue:
- ALT4: ... that the original of the sculpture of Shalabhanjika shown at the Children's Museum, Siri Fort has been called the "Indian Monalisa"? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- "In the buff" means nude, not lewd, and a hook that grabs interest with a harmless double entendre is perfectly fine. That some perverts may be disappointed once they click is not our concern. EEng 00:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- You've just agreed that the implication is there. My question is, is this the best we can do in terms of a hook respectful of the museum and the time and effort that someone put into creating this article? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Of course I "agreed" it's there. It's supposed to be there (though it appears you've failed to get the "buff" joke -- search the article for the string buff, or follow the link in the hook). The idea of a hook is to be "hooky" -- attract interest to the article by intriguing the reader. Look, let's ask what the article's creator, Nvvchar, thinks. EEng 03:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with ALT4 The statue is not any female figure "in the buff" but a specific stylized historical representation of Indian women ("Salabhanjika") that is compared to a classical work of western art ("Indian Monalisa"). The purpose of the museum is cultural education for children, so those specific terms are more relevant. Dorevabelfiore (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- You've just agreed that the implication is there. My question is, is this the best we can do in terms of a hook respectful of the museum and the time and effort that someone put into creating this article? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- "In the buff" means nude, not lewd, and a hook that grabs interest with a harmless double entendre is perfectly fine. That some perverts may be disappointed once they click is not our concern. EEng 00:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- ALT4: ... that the original of the sculpture of Shalabhanjika shown at the Children's Museum, Siri Fort has been called the "Indian Monalisa"? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)