- 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 Yoninah (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Acamarachi
edit- ... that Inka figurines have been found on Acamarachi (pictured) volcano?
- Reviewed: Mathilda Twomey
- Comment: One could also have a hook mentioning the crater lake, but I'd need sources for this.
5x expanded by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 14:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC).
- , the article is new (it was 5x epanded on 4-5th August) and long enough. It is interesting and cites sources with inline citations. No copyvio was detected.
My concerns are the following: (1) Hook fact is not directly verified by a reference to a reliable source. (2) The source which contains information similar to the hook fact (Besom 2013) does not mention Acamarachi, but writes of Pili (which is allegedly the alternative name of the same volcano). (3) That Pili and Acamarachi are identical is not verified in the article (or I missed something).Borsoka (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)- Borsoka Source for name variance added. The other source does say
Multiple human figurines have been unearthed on ten peaks (...) Pili (...) In not one of these cases does every statuette have the same sex
which means that more than one statuette was found. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Borsoka Source for name variance added. The other source does say
- Thank you for your above message.
Sorry, but hook fact still should be directly verified. I found two pieces of information that are not verified by the sources cited.Borsoka (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)- Borsoka, I've used a different source for these statements. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your above message.
- , the article is new (it was 5x epanded on 4-5th August) and long enough. It is interesting and cites sources with inline citations. No copyvio was detected.