The following discussion 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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
DYKcheck finds that article length and newness meet DYK requirements. Some of the content appears to have come from the article Oriya literature, where it was apparently copied from this source. Since that is a copyvio, to the extent that this article is original content not copied from the source, this article can be considered new. However, the copyvio at Oriya literature needs to be addressed.
The article is amply supplied with footnotes. QPQ is done. Significant effort seems to have been made to avoid close paraphrasing; my spot checks did not find problems in this area.
The basic facts of the original hook -- that he compiled this work and that it took about 30 years -- are in the article and are supported by sources, although the article is a bit off-hand in its discussion of the 30-year project. The facts in the ALT hook are well-supported by both the article and hook. However, the term "magnum opus" is a general one for a great work and does not have particular significance for this article -- it isn't even used in the article, although it is in the title of one cited source. However, a more compelling hook could be created by a rewrite of the original and alt hooks:
It is not entirely clear whether the image licence is sufficient. Authorship of the image isn't clear, so it is not possible to determine whether the photographer has been dead for 70 years. Accordingly, the image should not be used in DYK.
This is "good to go", with the caveats noted above. --Orlady (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)