Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Varda Viaduct

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Jonesey95 (talk | contribs) at 14:49, 27 April 2021 (Fix Linter errors.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 PumpkinSky talk 20:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Varda Viaduct

[edit]

Varda Viaduct seen from northwest.

Created/expanded by CeeGee (talk). Self nom at 09:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Reviewed: Andrew Geller
  • Interesting article, interesting hook, long enough and thoroughly footnoted. The image licensing looks valid to me, and it's a very good image, even at 100px size. The creation date is Dec. 20, not Dec. 25, but that's still within the appropriate time frame, and anyway it was expanded more than 5x on the 25th. I don't read Turkish, but the sources seem readable enough via Google translate. My concern, though, is with the reliability of the main sources: how do adanadan.biz, 360derecetarsus.com, and especially hacikiri.com (which appears to be a web forum) meet WP:RS? Were there no published book or magazine article sources to be found for this information? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The DYK guidelines say the date of the creation/expansion. I had taken the date of first expansion. I added some WP:RS refs now. The hook is well ref'ed anyway. CeeGee (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I removed the questionable sources. The remaining sources (and the one you added) look reliable to me. The article is now adequately sourced (although some facts in it could use more sources) and the hook itself is also well sourced. I think it's good to go now. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)