Template:Did you know nominations/Fortifications of Bangkok
- 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) 06:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Fortifications of Bangkok[edit]
.jpg)
Bangkok city wall and gate
- ... that Bangkok's city gates (example pictured) were enchanted in order to ward off evil spirits? Source: [1] (in Thai).
- ALT1:... that to prevent evil spirits from getting inside of Bangkok's city walls (pictured), the Ghost Gate—used to transport the dead—was placed in the line of sight of the Emerald Buddha statue? Source: same.
- Reviewed: Muhammad III, Sultan of Granada
Created by Paul 012 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC).
Article was nominated for DYK on November 23 so it meets the age requirements. Content is cited. As sources are mostly in Thai, they are accepted in good faith. QPQ provided. However, there are some typos in the article, like "Phra Sumen Fort is one of the remaining structures, which have been designated as ancient monuments" when it should be phrased something like "Phra Sumen Fort, which has been designated as an ancient monument, is one of the two remaining structures". Once these are resolved, this should be good to go. Both hooks are interesting, but I would prefer ALT0 to go up as it's shorter and somewhat quirkier. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure what's wrong with the previous wording, but I've adjusted the caption anyway. If there are other phrases you find problematic, please list them specifically. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- The phrasing of that part was a bit odd since one part referred to a singular noun but the other phrase used plurals. In any case, I don't think I saw any more problems so I guess this is ready.
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- The phrasing of that part was a bit odd since one part referred to a singular noun but the other phrase used plurals. In any case, I don't think I saw any more problems so I guess this is ready.
- I'm not quite sure what's wrong with the previous wording, but I've adjusted the caption anyway. If there are other phrases you find problematic, please list them specifically. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
