Template:Did you know nominations/Matta (chief)

Matta (chief), King Siharas

 * ... that Matta, ruler of Siwistan in the 7th century CE, made several attempts to increase his influence, including forging an alliance with the king of Kannuaj?
 * Comment: Bhavinkundaliya created the articles; I restructured them and edited, then nominated.

Created/expanded by Bhavinkundaliya (talk), DCI (talk). Nominated by DCI (talk) at 15:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good, if barely at DYK length, it's on the right side. Please remove the stub template, and it's good to go. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 03:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done.  DCI  talk 02:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Ahem. To start with, what is the nom about? The "-stan" part is indicative of a location on the Indian continent, but no context is apparent, and both articles are written as if for an exclusively local audience. Searching for Siwistan gets me, at best, to Sehwan Sharif - not exactly enlightening. Sindh is also vague: even though I knew what it was, how many readers would? The one modern localization I'm looking for is given in one note ("Rajput meaning one of the many, patrilineal ruling clans of northern India and some parts of Pakistan"). I cannot help but note that the citations used are redundant (the title of the book is given three times in one article) and vague in the essential bits - what year or edition? (if they have several edition, how could one track the citation to the given page?). Also, in King Siharas, large portions of text are uncited, including a quote (by whom?). Finally, the hook is way bland: "did you know that a guy who ruled over an obscure place tried to make himself better known by allying himself with another guy?" That's what guys, kings and chiefs included, do all the time. Dahn (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How's this: ... that Matta, a North Indian feudatory in the 7th century CE, was decisively defeated by Chach of Alor but was then appointed to lead one of Chach's governorates?  DCI  talk


 * Yes, the articles might seem geared for a local audience, but I don't find this too much of an issue, as they are understandable, but not too detailed, as there is not an immense deal of information on Matta. I for one, who does not reside on the Indian subcontinent, found the articles to make sense.  However, there is enough to guarantee notability - see the unsuccessful AfD nomination.  I'm quite willing to fix any issues with sourcing, but I considered them okay.   DCI  talk 03:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What I'm suggesting is merely the clarification of context and the addition of the relevant links at the right place in the text (there "who? what? where?" of an article). I am certainly not suggesting that the topic is not notable, just that the hook is uninteresting, and I see problems with the format of sourcing. And anyway, if you wish to help with that, please find a citation for the unattributed quote in King Siharas - "Chach was a great king, and had an extensive territory under his sway...". Is that from Dowson, or what? If it is, just move the note to the end of the paragraph, instead of keeping it before the quote. And, again, some of the paragraphs remain without a single citation, which is explicitly against DYK requirements.
 * I'm not saying we should find new or other sources. Just clarify what page of the existing sources verifies which part of the text, including in those paragraphs where no citation is given. What I'm also asking is for you to acknowledge that the citations are incomplete, and therefore possibly unverifiable: if one just gives page numbers but does not specify the edition/publication year of a book, it will be impossible to find that citation unless one guesses the edition right. Now I also notice that the Siharas article has a vague citation to "Department of Modern Indian History (1965). Journal of Indian History (Universities of Allahabad, Kerala, and Travancore) 43: 377". This is absurd, because the author and the name of the cited article, that is to say the most important parts of the reference, are skipped.
 * Additionally - and I don't want to make too much of it, articles that have random gaps in the text such as these ones (open them in the editing window and see what I mean) are sometimes indicative of a cut and paste job from the source. Plagiarism is also not welcomed by DYK. I'm not saying this is the case, but I would like someone who can access the Dowson book to confirm or deny this.
 * DCI, if you don't see the problem with these issues, I respectfully encourage you and the original editor to have a look over DYK's rules and guidelines, the citing guidelines, and also the referencing tutorial. Dahn (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am willing to withdraw the nominations, but would like to clarify several things.
 * Yes, the sources may be incomplete, and I will add more descriptive elements into the citation template fields.
 * I am certain that there was no plagiarism. When I edited/restructured the article, I revised multiple sentences, and, it seems, may have added some extra spaces unintentionally.  There may, however, be some quotes left un-cited.  This would be entirely my fault, and I will check those over at some point.
 * I'm not sure if this is a topic of interest to you, but if you are willing to help format some of the sources, please do. The majority of the works cited should be accessible through Google Books.
 * Thank you for your comments and suggestions.  DCI  talk 22:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One more thing: The "Chach" quote you mentioned is in Dowson, and was spoken by Siharas to Matta when discussing the latter's ambitions. I have a few DYKs already (this one is being reviewed for FA), but have been active elsewhere on Wikipedia and am now somewhat unfamiliar with the process.  I just thought the articles were fairly interesting and might be fine for the DYK section.   DCI  talk 22:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not my intention to bring these entries down, nor do I want you to withdraw the nomination; I want to point out the problems, and perhaps help fix them (per your suggestion). I would love for these articles to be cleaned up, and I actually think a better hook can be found, right after those more essential problems are addressed. The reasons why I would not address them directly without discussion are the following: 1) I know next to nothing about the subject, and could risk making inaccurate changes. To familiarize myself with the topic may require more time than I can spare for these nominations. I'm not being arrogant, I'm just saying I would rather focus on other issues (for instance, I am currently mostly writing an entirely different entry, upon the request of another user). 2) If we "just fix" the problems without a comment, users unfamiliar with the format may not notice what we did, and how we did it, and why we did it, and the learning part of being helpful gets wasted. If we don't show people those guidelines they're unaware of, they never become aware, and they never improve their style. Dahn (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)