- 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 Yoninah (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Bahubali
edit
The 57ft high Gommateshwara statue at Shravanabelagola, Karnataka, built in 981 A.D
... that Bahubali is also called Gommatesha because of the Gommateshwara statue dedicated to him?- ALT1:... that Bahubali is said to have meditated motionless in a standing posture for a year, during which time climbing plants grew around his legs?
Improved to Good Article status by Capankajsmilyo (talk), जैन (talk), Adam Cuerden (talk), Baffle gab1978 (talk), and Redtigerxyz (talk). Nominated by Capankajsmilyo (talk) at 00:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC).
- I have added bold links to the hooks. I notice this has been placed at T:TDYK under February. It belongs on the day of promotion, December 11, 2016, where I will move it in a moment. Given the date of consecration was 13 February 1432, are you asking that it be run on 13 February 2017? If so, just posting or confirming that request here is sufficient. EdChem (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Any date will work. That's consecration date of one of the statues. It's important but not very important. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Review still needed. North America1000 11:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a newly-promoted GA and is long enough and nominated within the correct time frame. Approving ALT1 which is more interesting to a general audience than ALT0. The image is suitably licensed. Trying to track down the source reference, I leafed my way through the book but could not find it on page 105-106 as cited, but deduced it might be on page 145-146, which proved correct. The article is neutral and I detected no policy issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
