Template:Did you know nominations/Chitrakoot Falls


 * 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 97198 (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Chitrakoot Falls

 * ... that the Chitrakoot Falls (pictured) is often called the Niagara Falls of India because of its wide water spread during the monsoon months?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Sundarbans

5x expanded by Nvvchar (talk), Redtigerxyz (talk). Nominated by Nvvchar (talk) at 01:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg QPQ fine, article length, newness and neutrality are fine. The hook is also diverting and we can AGF on the citation. Some other citations, however, are causes for concern.
 * I can't find support for citation 8 (supporting the description of the weather) in the source linked: could you add a page number to the citation?
 * Citation 5 (re "tribals" fishing) is cited to a book from 1955, yet uses the present tense. I don't think a 60-year-old book can support the fact as you present it.
 * On the other hand, the article is interesting and generally conforms to Wikipedia policies. I have cleaned up some of the flowery language. Relentlessly (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and edits. I have added the page number to reference 8. Reference 14 is added to support ref 5 on fishing in the lake by tribals. There is also a video clip showing tribals fishing below the falls. I am not sure if it is an acceptable reference.-- Nvvchar . 15:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg OK, looks good. I have changed "tribals" to "people", as the use of "tribal" as a noun is very outdated in UK English at least: it sounds colonial, even racist (I obviously realise that's not the intent, but it does sound odd). "People" sounds more neutral and no less accurate. The citation is a bit confusing (not your fault: it's bizarre page numbering in the PDF) but all the facts are there. Thanks for updating it, . Relentlessly (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * . Thank you.-- Nvvchar . 01:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)