Template:Did you know nominations/Ashtabharya et. al.

Ashtabharya, Jambavati, Yamuna in Hinduism, Mitravinda, Nagnajiti, Bhadra (Krishna's wife), Lakshmana (Krishna's wife), Junior wives of Krishna, Rohini (Krishna's wife)

 * ... that the Hindu god Krishna is described to have eight chief queens (pictured with Krishna) – Rukmini, Satyabhama, Jambavati, Kalindi, Mitravinda, Nagnajiti, Bhadra and Lakshmana – and 16,000 other wives headed by Rohini?
 * Comment: Jambavati, Yamuna in Hinduism are 5x and moved by admin on 2 May. Rest moved to mainspace on 1 May. Though there are variations in names and number of other wives, the popular Bhagavata Purana version is chosen.
 * Comment: Jambavati, Yamuna in Hinduism are 5x and moved by admin on 2 May. Rest moved to mainspace on 1 May. Though there are variations in names and number of other wives, the popular Bhagavata Purana version is chosen.

Redtigerxyz Talk 18:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Moved to mainspace by Nvvchar (talk), Redtigerxyz (talk). Nominated by Redtigerxyz (talk) at 15:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC).

QPQs:
 * Template:Did you know nominations/Ones
 * Template:Did you know nominations/Business tourism
 * Template:Did you know nominations/Ascents of James
 * Template:Did you know nominations/Kris Bryant
 * Template:Did you know nominations/Prime version
 * Template:Did you know nominations/Pussy (energy drink)
 * Template:Did you know nominations/Majdanek State Museum
 * Template:Did you know nominations/Harry Kizirian
 * Template:Did you know nominations/Of Mice and Men
 * I'll do this review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see 9 bolded links and only 5 QPQs. --16:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All articles are long enough.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All articles were moved from user space on May 1 or May 2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The citations need to be cleaned up. At Junior wives of Krishna, two of the four citations related to this hook are of the bald url/incomplete citation variety.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting the review. QPQs in progress. Redtigerxyz  Talk 17:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Junior wives of Krishna
 * Starting with the junior wives article, what is actually citing the 8 principal wives?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Reformatting your comment. Ref was not there as fact will not be challenged in article generally about 8 wives. Ashtabharya is linked.

Redtigerxyz Talk 18:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is the hook and thus has to be challenged here. You either need to change the hook to a cited fact or cite the fact in the article. Latter preferred.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Krishna is described to have eight chief queens (pictured with Krishna) – Rukmini, Satyabhama, Jambavati, Kalindi, Mitravinda, Nagnajiti, Bhadra and Lakshmana" is supported by Ashtabharya and each of the bolded names have ref that says she is part of the Ashtabharya. "16,000 other wives headed by Rohini" is supported by junior wives and Rohini. IMO, it is WP:UNDUE to name all individual co-wives in each of the wife article. Redtigerxyz Talk 05:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K. now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * At Rohini (Krishna's wife), you never cite the fact that she is the head wife.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Many commentaries and translations regard Rohini to be the chief of the 16,000 or 16,100 non-principal wives -who were kidnapped by the demon Narakasura and were rescued by Krishna after killing the demon- and represents them.[3][4][5]" Rohini is chief of the other wives. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be cited before the third time you describe her as the queeen.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is the first time where she is mentioned as chief of the other wives. In other instances, she is just mentioned as a queen. Redtigerxyz  Talk 05:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the big thing is to be the head wife. You are counting on a reader wanting toread the whole article to find this out. To me it should be stated in the first sentence or at least first paragraph that she is the head wife. Am I misunderstanding the significance of the claim?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Added in lead. She is not the head wife, but head of the other wives. Can you please suggest how this can be made clearer in the hook (if any confusion)?  Redtigerxyz  Talk 17:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That paragraph has a lot of facts that are hard to WP:V. You need to put a citation, inline after each fact. Even the last phrase "Rohini is described as one of the Ashtabharya in some lists and head of the unnamed wives in a list" should have citations at two different points in the sentence. Your hook has several embedded facts. In order to V your hook, I should be able to look at each fact in the paragraph and see which citation(s) are associated with it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The first para is like a lead. For head: "Many commentaries and translations of the scripture [Bhagavata Purana] regard Rohini to be the chief of the 16,000 non-principal wives - who were kidnapped by the demon Narakasura and were rescued by Krishna after killing the demon - and represents them.[3][4][5]" 3,4,5 all support all facts in the sentence. with the Wilson and Hopkins compare the differences between scriptures. So they support the whole sentence. Redtigerxyz  Talk 14:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It either is a WP:LEAD or it isn't. If you want it to be a LEAD, section off the rest of the article and make the LEAD a summary of the res of the article. Then you either have to go with the cited or uncited LEAD format. Uncited means that each fact in the LEAD is cited in the main body. Cited means each fact in the LEAD is cited. As it stands, I am unable to WP:V many facts in the opening paragraph because I can not determine which citation confirms them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Modified. Redtigerxyz Talk 07:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Every fact in the LEAD is suppose to be a summary of a fact in the main body. If I look at the LEAD and see a fact about an avatar, I should be able to go to the main body and find a cited fact in at least as great a detail if not more detail.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also the Rohini_(Krishna's_wife) section still does not seem to distribute the citations so that I can tell which facts they support.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Since this is an interpretation, multiple sources are put to support the same facts. All of them support the para. Redtigerxyz  Talk 15:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:RS support facts, not general topics. The paragraph at issue is by definition incorrectly cited. The first sentence in the paragraph says One source says xyz. It is not possible that this sentence is correctly cited by three sources at the end of the paragraph. Puts citations with the proper facts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The first sentence says "Bhagavata Purana" says ... All three sources are secondary sources for the primary Bhagvata Purana. Redtigerxyz  Talk 04:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Although the toolserver report says all the links are O.K., I am unable to open the ref.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you put retrieved dates on all the online citations so we can confirm a date when the links were not dead.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Which one is dead? All can accessed. Rechecked. Also, most are available in paper/book form. Redtigerxyz  Talk 13:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Connection seems good. I will have a look now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Moving on to the next article Ashtabharya needs to rework its WP:LEAD. A LEAD can be of either the cited or uncited variety. I.e., either all facts are cited in the lead or none are because the citation is in the main body. As I read this lead the first paragraph is cited and the 2nd and 3rd are not. Go one way or the other.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * In the article Ashtabharya, I have chosen the alternative of shifting the references from the lead to the main body. Hope it is ok now. Thanks.-- Nvvchar . 14:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is a mess. The LEAD does not summarize the main article. I am looking for one cited fact in this article. "He has 8 chief queens". The LEAD of this article should say this as should the main text. The main text probably does say it in a scattershot way. The main body should say "Krishna has eight chief queens: 1, 2, 3...8" before you start talking about a pecking order. I'll try to slog through this and see if they are all listed and cited, but this is a mess.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K. that fact checks there. The first paragraph is not as bad as I thought. It just needs an introductory sentence affirming he has 8 chief queens to contextualize the paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I WP:AGF on the 6 wives that are part of the hook.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this all passes now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)


 * Thanks.-- Nvvchar . 16:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)