A fact from Princess of Xiaohe appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 February 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the Princess of Xiaohe, a 3,800-year-old mummy, was so well preserved that her eyelashes are still intact?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
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 SL93 (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... that the 3,800 year old mummy Princess of Xiaohe was so well preserved, her eyelashes are still intact? Source: https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202110/30/WS617c80eea310cdd39bc723a9.html "Due to the unique natural conditions that have been ideal for preservation, her body has been well protected and her delicate hair and eyelashes all remain visible although she was buried more than 3,800 years ago."
ALT2: ... that the Princess of Xiaohe was buried in a boat, despite being found in the middle of the desert? Source: http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/Archaeology/162045.htm "As archaeologists gingerly opened a boat-shaped coffin..." and "excavation deep inside the Lop Nur Desert"; the mummy is identified as Princess Xiaohe somewhat later in the text.
Overall: Very interesting article! It's new enough, long enough and well sourced except for the first sentence of "Exhibitions". That has to be either removed or cited before the nom can be approved. All of the hooks are cited and very interesting, so I have no preference for any of them. No copyvio issues and qpq is done. Once the minor sourcing issue's fixed, this one will be ready. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, and thank you for the review! I put the hooks in order of preference, though now that I think about it ALT1 might be "hookier" in the sense of drawing more attention. And ALT2 is slightly misleading, there was a dried-up river bed near Xiaohe that likely ran when she was alive, I just didn't manage to work that into the article in a natural way. Rusalkii (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
. Approved with the very first hook. Problematic text is [removed] Thanks for the nice work. RV (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for wrapping up the review @RAJIVVASUDEV:! Just as a note, it's generally not best to close a review that someone else opened, unless a second review is requested or they disappear. That said, it's really good to see you getting comfortable with these reviews, and I hope you keep going! BuySomeApples (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting for the promoter that this one might be nice for International Women's Day 8th March. DrThneed (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading through the supplementary DYK instructions and I noticed that starting with text copied for another wiki means it might not count as originally created and should follow the 5x expansion guideline instead. I'm not entirely sure what counts, but I used about a paragraph of text from the simple English Wikipedia as the base of the article. I don't know if the submission is still okay or not, so just noting this here for the record. Rusalkii (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BuySomeApples:, Hello! Firstly, I am sorry I made this mistake here. Believe me, I was not aware. I will surely take care of it next time. Best regards RV (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's no big deal at all! I don't even think it's a rule per se. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting article! It's new enough, long enough and well sourced except for the first sentence of "Exhibitions". That has to be either removed or cited before the nom can be approved. All of the hooks are cited and very interesting, so I have no preference for any of them. No copyvio issues and qpq is done. Once the minor sourcing issue's fixed, this one will be ready. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
. Approved with the very first hook. Problematic text is [removed] Thanks for the nice work. RV (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)