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: rejected by reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 17:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the Golden Temple is made of copper overlaid with gold leaves?

• Reviewed:

_saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 19:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - At least one sentence copied/closely paraphrased from bbc.co.uk; see Copyvio Detector.
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - The proposed hook as written is not supported in the article. The article says The Temple was renovated in marble and copper in 1809, and in 1830 Ranjit Singh donated gold to overlay the sanctum with gold leaf. The article does not support the idea that the Temple is made of copper. The listed source for the hook is not accessible via Google Books, and the source for the claim in the article, pp. 28-30, also does not mention anything about the temple materials including copper. The Encyclopedia of Sikhism entry on the temple does say its upper levels and roofs are gilded copper.
• Interesting: - Not very. I would recommend making it a bit more specific. It is unsurprising that a "Golden Temple" would indeed have gold leaf on it.

Overall: Updated 28 April 2025; DYK withdrawn without necessary improvements. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 (talk) Thanks for reviewing this nomination. It's hard to change the language of the sentence as it represents the the information clearly and is a translation of the the information. As a sikh myself, I can assure that the similarity is a coincidence. Still, to prevent a violation, I've fixed it to prevent the copyright violation. Also, thanks for the source & I think that it would be better to change the hook. Apologies for taking your time in this hook as this is my first nom. _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 09:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ophyrius There's still part of that sentence that is copied word for word from the BBC source. Please ping me once you have addressed that, updated the text of the hook and added an image to the DYK. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have provided a courtesy ping to the nominator; if improvements are not made by 28 April I will close this DYK nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971: I'm withdrawing this nomination as most of the sources are book sources and I was unsuccessful finding their web equivalents. Also there aren't much intersting facts in the article for dyk which are reliable. _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 05:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ophyrius: Are you really sure about withdrawing this? Given how this is the most important site in all of Sikhism I'm sure there is material that could work as a hook. @Dclemens1971: Does anything else come to mind, or is the main issue the close paraphrasing and not the lack of a hook? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: The close paraphrasing is not completely dealt with, see notes above, and that's a threshold issue, but the lack of a compelling hook is the bigger obstacle. Surely a good hook can be written but "did you know the Golden Temple is covered with gold" is not it. I am not a sufficient expert on this subject matter to develop my own hook so depend on the nominator. Feel free to reverse my "no" and restore the "maybe" if you'd like to take over the review! Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: You are right but Having been through the article, I think the content is already known by most people. But, still I think 1 sentence can nominated as hook. But, it's a book source like most others & I can't find a web equivalent. Book sources is the main reason I'm unable to find good hooks._saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 09:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no problem with the source I choose this hook. Else, you can close this discussion as failed._saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 09:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that land for the Golden Temple was chosen by Guru Amar Das?

• Not taking over the review as I generally try to avoid reviewing articles that involve contentious topics (and the Golden Temple and Sikhism as a whole fall under that). I'll ask around and see if anyone could propose a new hook here; the article is fairly dense so there might be something useful. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to note that the article is currently at GAR, so this nomination will have to go on hold until that is resolved. In any case, how does this sound? I asked at the Wikimedia Discord for suggestions, and a user suggested the following idea:

Volunteers preparing food for the Langar

ALT ... that the Golden Temple, the holiest site in Sikhism, serves thousands of meals for free daily?

That could definitely work if the sourcing is proper and the GAR is resolved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This BBC source says it serves 100,000 meals every day, so I would tweak the hook to be more specific about that instead of just saying "thousands". ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5 and ArtemisiaGentileschiFan:Added image. Also having an alternative._saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 04:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The GAR has closed in delisting, thus failing the "newness" criterion.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]