Template:Did you know nominations/Dak bungalow


 * 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  Jolly  Ω   Janner  05:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Dak bungalow

 * ... that "nothing is too wild, grotesque, or horrible to happen in a dak bungalow" (pictured)?


 * ALT1:... that dak bungalows (pictured) are "about as handsome as a stack of hay"?
 * ALT2: ... that a fair proportion of the tragedy of British India "acted itself out in its dak bungalows" (pictured)?
 * Reviewed: will do Nexus 6P

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 04:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC).


 * New, sourced, and long enough, however article needs work, to clarify the concept. This seems to be a definition of a category of buildings by function (utilitarian, government-built structures constructed under the Raj) not building type (such as a Quonset hut or, well, a bungalow). Page lacks categories.  And it is not clear why creator also created Dak Bungalow.  Perhaps a merge of the two pages would be better.-->E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fine to note things you'd like to see improved, but kindly point out which actual policy is being violated here, move on with the review, or don't consider this one for QPQ purposes. Your second sentence simply seems to be an observation and implies the concept is already perfectly clear. Dak Bungalow is a separate page because it is a separate concept, concerning the name as a proper noun. — Llywelyn II   07:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I've added quote marks to alt2. Even so this is a quote from a book of fiction. Rhetoric question: How many of the millions of the tragic result of the 1857 rebellion were living in dak bungalows? Victuallers (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Added quote marks to other two options, if they're needed in this context. W/r/t to your rhetorical question: Rhetorical questions aren't meant to be answered but I'm not sure what you're talking about. The tragic results being Indians who generally only served as attendants at the dak bungalows? Not millions. Or the British who were massacred there, of whom there also weren't millions? But the page already has cites for some of the massacres at the time and their role in evacuating civilian British. — Llywelyn II   07:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 10 million is a tragedy Victuallers (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * At the dak bungalows, not over the entire conflict. — Llywelyn II   16:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed, since original one has not returned. Reviewer should consider whether a quote from a work of fiction (original hook) is appropriate for DYK; I've struck ALT2 as I felt the combination of fictional quote and paraphrase from the more complete fictional quote crossed a line. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Long enough even after discounting long quotes. QPQ done. Image checked. Struck original hook, fictional quote seems inappropriate. ALT1 is cited, perhaps could add in who said the quote, but ok as is. Could you change the references to use books.google.com rather than books.google.co.jp? Then I'll run copyvio again. Zeete (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Zeete, Earwig's Copyvio Detector is effectively useless in checking Google books—all it sees is the main web page for the book, not the book contents (even if they're displayed in a window on the page). Just take a look at any report's contents (for example, this one), and you'll see what I mean. Unfortunately, these are sources that need to be checked individually, by reading the relevant page(s) and comparing to the article text. Fortunately, the links appear to go directly to the top of the page being cited, since some books (including the one I've just linked to) have no page numbers. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update on copyvio. I had checked the sources manually, but while checking the reference for the hook quote, p. 19 I did not expect Japanese. Now I get inconsistent results and see the English page, while earlier it was all Japanese, no page image, no English. I would use books.google.com. Is there a policy on this? Zeete (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Zeete, I don't know of any policy. Though I'm not positive about this, I believe that Google books may make more or less of a book available depending on the country, in which case this may be a way to see more of a book's referenced contents. Regardless, so long as the books are referenced, whether through a Japanese or American site, DYK sourcing requirements should be satisfied. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go with ALT1. Zeete (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)