Template:Did you know nominations/Sendai City Tomizawa Site Museum
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Sendai City Tomizawa Site Museum
The Sendai City Tomizawa Site Museum
- ... that a museum in Sendai (pictured) was built around a 20,000 year old campsite? Source:
"The Basement Gallery preserves and exhibits the remains of a 20,000 year old bonfire and a forest in their discovered state. The bonfire remains is in a slightly elevated place, where hundreds of stone tools were found." [1]"地底の森ミュージアムは約2万年前の遺跡を現地で保存公開している、旧石器時代のテーマミュージアムです。発掘された資料などから当時の環境と人類の活動を生き生きとよみがえらせる展示をしています" [2]
- Reviewed: King Ludwig Oak
Created by Mccunicano (talk). Self-nominated at 02:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC).
Article is new and the hook is interesting. However, the hook made is supported by a primary source (or a source affiliated with the subject) as is the rest of the article and it would be nice to see a secondary source used instead. (This is my first review, so if I'm doing anything wrong, please let me know.) 17:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Lullabying: Hello and thanks for taking the time to review my hook. Wikipedia:Reliable sources states "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." I wouldn't say I stated anything here that isn't already explicitly stated within the sources to avoid original research. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 00:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's better if you're able to find a secondary source that states this information for verifiability. lullabying (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Lullabying: Ok, I've added a secondary source for the information that is stated in the hook. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 03:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Seems good to go. lullabying (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Lullabying: Ok, I've added a secondary source for the information that is stated in the hook. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 03:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's better if you're able to find a secondary source that states this information for verifiability. lullabying (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Lullabying: Hello and thanks for taking the time to review my hook. Wikipedia:Reliable sources states "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." I wouldn't say I stated anything here that isn't already explicitly stated within the sources to avoid original research. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 00:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
