Template:Did you know nominations/Church of San Pedro de Atacama
- 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 18:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Church of San Pedro de Atacama edit
- ... that the roof of the Church of San Pedro de Atacama (pictured) features cactus and wood bound with llama leather in the altiplano style?
Created by Nvvchar (talk), Rosiestep (talk). Nominated by Rosiestep (talk) at 01:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC).
Image is under free license, so that's ok. However, length is barely ok (1748 characters -- just scrapes away from a stub tag) & the entire article is sourced to travel guides, which are not reliable sources. As is, the article does not rise above travel-guide blurb, which IMHO is not worthy to be showcased on WP's main page. The hook is also confusing. Suggested re-phrasing, if article sourcing can be improved: that the roof of the Church of San Pedro de Atacama (pictured) is made of cactus and wood bound together with llama leather in the altiplano style? Renata (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nvv and I both spent time researching for non-travel guide references before this nom was made and neither of could find other sources. If the current refs are not satisfactory for promoting this article, then no worries, I'm withdrawing the nom. And thank you for the review. The hook fact, though, was interesting IMO: tying cactus and wood together with llama leather to create a roof! :) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- I debated long and hard about this. Yes, the hook is interesting (like, WTF? interesting), but the article quality is lacking. As usual with non-English subject matter, there is a dearth of English-language sources (I am very familiar with the problem) and opposing the entry only promoted pro-English bias... But I can't, with good conscience, promote an article written based on travel guides (not just the hook, the whole article in general). It would be simply fantastic if someone could dig up local (Spanish) sources about the church. Renata (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- I added 3 sentences with 3 Spanish language refs, including the fact that the church is a registered historical monument. I recognize, though, that this may not be enough. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thought about it longer and harder, but still, sorry, does not change the fact that the hook and majority of the article is sourced to travel guides. However, feel free to reach out for a second opinion (I am not familiar with intricacies of DYK rules - when did it become this giant instruction creep? *shakes head* - but I assume that's a possibility). Renata (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Renata3 - I do thank you for your review. It would be nice if this Chilean article were promoted (after all, when was the last time we used the words cactus and llama leather in a hook!) but I'm not the decision-maker. If a second reviewer wants to chime in and promote it; that's fine. If you want to decline it; that is ok, too, no worries. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Anything happening here? Time for fresh eyes? --PFHLai (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)- Need a new reviewer here, please. --PFHLai (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- We have a mission here to share the worlds information with everyone.(ie:Wikimedia mission) We also have a project that is meant to show our newest work.(ie DYK purpose). Either we wait for someone else to do our job and then paraphrase it (in 20 years time)... or we say 1. this is is a notable church. 2. We have two of our best editors trying to find sources and this is the best they can find. 3. They may not be perfect sources but no doubt they (in my mind) they are telling (something very close to) the truth. OK, This is not good enough for a church in the middle of London or New York. But I move that this is good enough if DYK is going to take part in sharing information outside the USA/Europe/Australia world..... and that is our mission. Victuallers (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
For the most basic and uncontroversial of statements, a travel guide is good enough for our purposes (though I wouldn't hang anything important on them). I question, however, www.monumentos.cl and planarquitectos.cl. What makes these two reliable? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
sources mentioned Crisco are not pivotal to this article. monumentos.cl looks pretty good and supports the year that this church was listed. Seems reasonable. I agree that travel guides are useful for less important items. Thanks to the editors Victuallers (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
