- 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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Blend (textile)
- ...
that while "Muslim men were not permitted to wear pure silk, a silk-and-cotton blend known as Mashru was lawful"?
- ALT1: ...
that while Muslim men were not allowed to wear pure silk, they were permitted to wear Mashru, a silk-cotton combination? Source: [1][2]: 331
- ... ALT2: ...
that while Muslim men were not permitted to wear pure silk due to a religious admonition, a silk-and-cotton blend known as Mashru was allowed? Source: [3][4]: 331
- ... ALT3: ... that in the 12th century, when wearing pure silk was forbidden for Muslim men, a silk-and-cotton blend known as Mashru solved the problem? Source: [5][6]: 331
Created by RAJIVVASUDEV (talk). Self-nominated at 10:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Overall: 
Thank you, RAJIVVASUDEV, for a useful article. It does contain one plagiarised phrase: "Muslim men were not permitted to wear pure silk, a silk-and-cotton blend known as "Mashru"" which is not acknowledged as a quotation with a citation at the end of it. So you will need to rephrase this, or make it a quotation both in the article and in the hook. Storye book (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Hi! Storye book Thanks for your review and valuable comments. I have tried to fix the problem. Kindly check. Regards RV (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@Storye book, RAJIVVASUDEV, and Theleekycauldron: I'm reopening this nomination, as the concern raised above has not seem to have been fully addressed. The hook and the phrase in the article need to be phrased in your own words, not copied verbatim from the source. As noted, it could be used as a quote if it were part of a larger commentary, but per MOS:QUOTE if that were the case it would need to satisfy: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea". Quotes shouldn't be used for the main prose of an article, and when used they need to be attributed. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: Hi! Thanks for your comments, Kindly see the recent edit. Is it okay? Do we need more corrections? Warm regards RV (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, RAJIVVASUDEV, I approve ALT1 in the light of above comments. (Note: To clarify the discussion, I have reinstated and struck out ALT0 and re-named your corrected hook as ALT1. No content was changed). Good to go with ALT1. Storye book (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Storye book Thanks for your approval. I added ALT2 also. Best regards RV (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, RAJIVVASUDEV. For good measure, please would you kindly add a ALT3, just like ALTs 1 and 2, but including the phrase 12th century, because the hooks are a bit misleading that way. Without the "12th century", readers might be forgiven for assuming that it means last year or last week? Storye book (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Storye book I tried. Kindly have a look. Thanks and regards RV (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- @RAJIVVASUDEV: Good try - but you missed out "Muslim". Please could you add it back in? If you can do that, ALT 3 would be OK. Storye book (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Storye book: See if it is okay? Thanks and regards RV (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- @RAJIVVASUDEV: please could you also amend the text in the article as well? The prose should be written in Wikipedia's voice, summarising the source while not closely paraphrasing it. As noted above, this doesn't look like a valid use of a quote as you're using the quote to convey the main portion of the information, not just for illustration, and it's also not attributed. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Amakuru:, Hi! I am sorry I could not resolve it completely. I have made the edits to the article. Kindly see. And please guide me [for this notification] Thanks, and regards, RV (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @RAJIVVASUDEV: OK that's fine, thanks for the update. And regarding the notification you received, I have added it back to the approved queue so should hopefully the hook should be re-promoted before too long. — Amakuru (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
ALT3 to
T:DYK/P4
Thank you, RAJIVVASUDEV, for a useful article. 
@Storye book, RAJIVVASUDEV, and Theleekycauldron: I'm reopening this nomination, as the concern raised above has not seem to have been fully addressed. The hook and the phrase in the article need to be phrased in your own words, not copied verbatim from the source. As noted, it could be used as a quote if it were part of a larger commentary, but per MOS:QUOTE if that were the case it would need to satisfy: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea". Quotes shouldn't be used for the main prose of an article, and when used they need to be attributed. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)