Template:Did you know nominations/Royal Observatory, Cape of Good Hope

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Allen3 talk 14:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Royal Observatory, Cape of Good Hope[edit]

(
)

The McClean dome, telescope and laboratory

Moved to mainspace by Capester (talk). Nominated by Davidwr (talk) at 03:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC).

  • Review of Royal Observatory, Cape of Good Hope:
QPQ not required
Length fine (definitely at least 5x larger than dedicated text within previous redirect target)
Move from AFC to mainspace verified
Article meets cite requirements and written to a good standard
Dup detector to online source shows no problems (all matches are simply names of institutions or reference books)
Hook is on format, nice and short, hook fact is at top of article and cited to book, have found google books snippet to verify
The image, as it stands, cannot be used on Wikipedia. On the en.wikipedia file uploaded by Capester he releases under cc0-1.0 licence to public domain but the same photo (check the cloud formation "fingerprint") appears on the UNESCO project copyright to an Ian Glass. If the image is removed from the nomination then it can be passed (with pictured taken out of the hook) - also, we need to consider whether to XFD the image file for copyvio (unless it can be proven that Ian Glass and Capester are one and the same). Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 22:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Baldy Bill for spotting this. I found the full-sized image on the same web site and did a "binary compare." They match. If it is possible to hold this nomination for up to a week then do so, otherwise proceed without the image. I have nominated the image for deletion in the hopes that the uploader will provide the necessary permissions in time for it to be used as part of the hook. For more information, see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mcclean outside.jpg and commons:User talk:Capester. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply: Agree to hold, that's a perfectly reasonable request and timescale, and in any case it couldn't be promoted whilst the image is undergoing a deletion review. Please can you ping this page with {{subst:DYK?again}} when you know the outcome of that deletion review so we can move it forward, one way or the other. Thanks! Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 23:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The image uploader has replaced the "hook" image in the article with one he presumably took himself (WP:AFG) and plans on letting the other image die to deletion. I have replaced it in the hook above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Although the metadata has been overwritten by a GIMP photoedit, I'm also prepared to AGF that it is now correctly licenced (ccbysa3.0) as the author's own work (I have run a google images search and there appear to be no close matches). Remainder of approval detailed in my review above. Good to go! Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 23:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Regrettably, when I went to promote this, I discovered several paragraphs that were unsourced, and a couple of sections as well (such as the list of directors). DYK rule of thumb is at least one inline source per paragraph. Please improve the sourcing for the article. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
    @BlueMoonset:I have notified the primary contributor. Please allow a few days for him to improve the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • A few days are fine. Thanks, davidwr. (Note: pings and user links don't work as notifications from templates, unfortunately. I checked in because this is on my watchlist.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I have added references for some assertions and the list of directors. Please mention any other items you require references for.Capester (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)capester
  • Capester - the bit BlueMoonset is requesting cites for is the first part of the history section, and the prose paragraph above the list of principal telescopes. There is also a statement in the lead which was tagged for citation that SAHRA have declared it a grade 1 heritage site; searching the SAHRA gazetted database (and many results on google) shows buildings in the observatory district (hospital, mortuary etc) listed as heritage sites but not the observatory itself. I have blanked this sentence which should not be restored until a reliable cite is found. Re the other 3 paragraphs, I have sorted these for you, but someone else will need to finalise approval as I shouldn't verify my own work. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 19:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Capester - Nominator speaking here: I am (obviously) not as well-versed in the DYN rules as I should be, but if I read BlueMoonset correctly, the sections "Some astronomers who worked at the Royal Observatory" and "Principal buildings" should have an in-line citation (IMHO preferably a single citation for the whole section, similar to "Her Majesty's astronomers at the Cape"). BlueMoonset and Baldy_Bill: Am I reading BlueMoonset's earlier comment correctly or have I just given CApester bad advice? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply to davidwr: WP:DYKAR rule D2 does not specifically mention lists needing inline cites, and these lists do not make any contentious claims so my gut feeling is (bearing in mind that in any case DYK approval is subjective (D13)), given the breadth of cited sources for the article as a whole these lists do not need further citation, otherwise we would be moving into the realms of WP:OVERCITE. They would need citing if for example there was a hook saying "9 astronomers worked at the site" in order to support such a hook (eg a recent case where a hook stated 12 of a racing mare's foals were winners). Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 19:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I think D2 does cover lists that are the entire contents of an article section, and wouldn't be inclined to promote if the article failed to footnote at least one entry in the list. "Principal buildings" has a cite; "Some astronomers" does not. In this case, there's really no excuse for a complete absence of cites: many of the entries in this section are mentioned in the History section, and if those sources support their work at the observatory there, they certainly should here. (They may not necessarily support the date range, in which case put the inline cite next to the name, but if they support the date range as well, put them afterward.) I'm not saying every entry needs a cite, though if this ever goes for GA it might be required; for now, add cites that cover what you already know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I added links to the cites that mention astronomers in the section in question so the AGF sourcing should be ok and the other stuff checks out. Barring anything I missed, it should be good to go. Thingg⊕⊗ 21:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Royal_Observatory,_Cape_of_Good_Hope&oldid=881000252"