Talk:Jod Gumbaz

A fact from Jod Gumbaz appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 January 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that during the British period, the tomb of Khan Muhammad was used as an office and residence for the executive engineer?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jod Gumbaz.

Wikipedia

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice job, I might nominate this for WP:DYK.

Seawolf35 (talk - email) 21:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

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 Lightburst talk 17:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

The tomb of Khan Muhammad

... that during the British period, the tomb of Khan Muhammad was used as an office and dwelling for the executive engineer? Source: Murray, John (1906). A Handbook for Travellers in India, Burma, and Ceylon. p. 367.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
- ALT1: ... that the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb ordered that a mausoleum be built for him using the taxes paid by Bijapur to the Mughals for one year? Source: Cousens, Henry (1905). Bijapur, the Capital of the Adil Shahi Kings: A Guide to Its Ruins. Scottish Mission Industries Company. pp. 83–85.
- ALT2: ... that Khan Muhammad "the traitor" was a military commander in service of the Adil Shahis, and had been bribed into switching allegiances in favour of the Mughals? Source: Murray, John (1906). A Handbook for Travellers in India, Burma, and Ceylon. p. 367.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
- Reviewed: None, QPQ not needed

Created by AmateurHi$torian (talk). Nominated by Seawolf35 (talk) at 22:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Jod Gumbaz; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

I'll review this. Schwede 66 23:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new article. Earwig is clean. No QPQ required as the nominator does not appear to have any prior DYKs. The article is well above the minimum length but I'd like a little more detail shown as it currently does feel incomplete. I've placed one "citation needed" tag. This complex is on the list of Monuments of National Importance and they all have a registration number, which would help a reader find it more easily on a list. That number should, in my view, be included in the article. Secondly, it only says that it was "built during the late Adil Shahi period" and I wonder whether it would be possible to give a year or at least a decade so that a reader doesn't have to start their own research what this means. Even including the death years of those entombed would help provide clarity. Other than that, I've done minor amendments myself, e.g. linked to Wikidata (which in turn created a link to Commons) and included a link to the List of Monuments of National Importance in a new "See also" section. Of the hooks, I prefer ALT0 as most interesting, and it is suitably cited. The article needs just a little more work before it's ready. Schwede 66 00:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66 I have fixed the citation needed tag and have included the year the monument was built in the mentioned segment. I am not sure about the registration number though. I do agree that ALT0 is the most interesting hook. Regards, Seawolf35 (talk - email) 02:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: Is this hook ready to be approved? If not, what needs to happen to get it approved? Z1720 (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, this has been long good to go. ALT0 is approved. The image is suitably licensed and this would be a potential photo hook. Schwede 66 03:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Seawolf35, Schwede66, and Lightburst: I have unpromoted this hook as I have concerns over WP:DYKPOL. A large paragraph of historical details is sourced to a 1905 colonial-era gazette; this is not ideal per WP:OLDSOURCES, part of the reliable sources guideline. I would advise that the historical information is re-cited from a more up-to-date work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: I am not sure WP:OLDSOURCES applies to the citation for this hook. The place "was used as an office" and that did not change since 1906. The old Sources guideline refers specifically to academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light. Regarding the de-promotion of the hook I think we might have had a discussion without the abrupt revert. It was not scheduled to run for nine days and issues could be sorted in the prep. Lightburst (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my comment, I did not mention the hook Lightburst. As the part that I actually talked about constitutes 30% of the article, this is a major issue that is best addressed without a ticking deadline. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: A nine day clock is a long time to sort it out. But back to the claims about oldsources guideline: it specifically mentions exemptions for historical topics by saying With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. I also admit that we can parse the guideline to support a position. WP has competing policies, guidelines and essays and when they contradict I like to go with the policy. Lightburst (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I note you omitted the second half of that paragraph, Lightburst. Also please note that the cited source is not a historical paper or report, but a travel guide. Which policy are you intending to go with? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The back and forth can muddy up the nomination and make it harder to promote so for the sake of the nomination I will exit: the reviewer and nominator can address your concerns. Lightburst (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I shall leave Seawolf35 to reply to the concerns. Schwede 66 00:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 I have sourced another unsourced statement, I personally do not find much wrong with the gazette you mentioned but... I digress. Sources are quite hard to find for this article. Seawolf35 ^T--C 00:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Approved, perhaps against my own better judgement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]