Template:Did you know nominations/Amaravati Marbles

Amaravati Marbles

 * ... that since dozens of Elliot Marbles (example pictured) were brought to the British Museum their ownership has been uncontested?
 * Reviewed: Adrienne Augarde

Created by Jononmac46 (talk), Victuallers (talk). Johnbod (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 00:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I've read over the article several times, but I can't find anything from which the hook was drawn. Please correct me (ideally copying here the text from which you got the hook), or please suggest a new hook.  I've not checked anything else.  Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi @Nyttend - thanks for the review - the hooh fact is mentioned here "The Amaravati or Elliot Marbles have been compared with the beauty of the Elgin Marbles, but unlike the Greek sculptures, the ownership of them has not been contested." with the reference here.


 * Could be that the hook doesn't work as it relies of readers seeing "Elliot Marbles" as similar to "Elgin Marbles". If so then we could find an alt. Victuallers (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we really need an alt. "Nobody wanted them back" suggests that the British Museum tried to send them back to India, only to get a "no thank you" from every museum with which they talked.  I wouldn't object to a hook saying that the ownership's been uncontested; the name similarity isn't a problem in my eyes.  Once we get the hook ready, I'll check the article for the other DYK requirements.  Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have taken your advice and changed the hook.Victuallers (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Victuallers, I just realised that I'd not done anything except the hook. The date is just barely within the boundary, and the length is obviously fine.  No problems with the image: the photo itself is an own work of the uploader, and there was no concept of modern copyright in the context whence the carvings originated.  I've found just about everything in the article in the sources that are cited, but there's just one additional issue.  There's a substantial chunk of text cited to source #1, but the home page doesn't have any of the information in question, and I can't find a page that does.  What's going on there?  Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi @Nyttend, the site in question is one of these where the url doesn't change, I have added extra instructions to the ref. From the homepage you need to click on "Archaeology" and that will tell you about the history. HTT Victuallers (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant by "I can't find a page that does" — I went to http://www.chennaimuseum.org/draft/gallery/01/arch.htm and didn't find it. Now that I check the page history, I see that you've added a different citation to most of the paragraph in question; thank you.  This resolves most of the problems, but the bit about how he found the site (e.g. "Wandering on the right bank of the Krishna River...") I don't see in either source.  Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done I think - had to tweak as this isnt my contribution. @Johnbod has also made some valuable contributions. Thanks for your patience @Nyttend Victuallers (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't patience: it was forgetfulness. I apologise, since I can't explain it away.  I'll do another review, but while I'd like to do it tonight, I'm not mentally there — I'm just back to my house (it's midnight here) after an 800 km trip that had me leave at 5AM.  Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg The bit in question has now been sourced to a book published by Cambridge University Press; that's sufficient. The other problems I mentioned in my last review have also been fixed, so nothing more stands in the way.  Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)