The following is an archived discussion of Bhadra Fort's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Carabinieri (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC).
Bhadra Fort
edit
- ... that a tower clock (pictured) at Bhadra Fort, was the first electrical connection of Ahmedabad?
Created by Nizil Shah (talk). Self nom at 07:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
New article that was moved into mainspace from sandbox. Was 6,182 characters at the time of move and still is. Ref 22 (the source supporting the hook) is from the Times of India, so reliable and verifiable. Entire article is well-sourced. Hook is interesting and is 112 characters long, so below the 200 character limit. QPQ done. Looks good to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm uncertain about the reliability of the sources cited in footnotes 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 21, and 26. Could you explain why you think they're reliable?--Carabinieri (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I never said they were reliable. I said the source for the hook is reliable. And since more than 2⁄3 of the article's sources (19 of 28) are indeed reliable without question, I'm letting this pass. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't actually addressing you specifically, though when I read my comment in context, it does look like I'm responding to you calling the Times of India a reliable source. Nevertheless, I think one third of an article being based on unreliable sources (assuming they are all unreliable, I don't know) is a problem. --Carabinieri (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Nomination should not be promoted while this issue is being discussed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- All unreliable sources are website sources and the most of them are additional sources to support an information of reliable sources. Removal of those unreliable web sources may not affect much to an article. Only small amount of content is solely based on unreliable sources. Should I remove them or leave as it is?--Nizil (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Unless there is reason to believe that these sources are reliable, I'd suggest removing them as well as any material based only on them.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- All additional unreliable sources removed. Source no.5 and 16 are websites dedicated to tourism in Ahmedabad city so did not removed. Source No.6 is a blogpost but I did not removed it as there is an Image in blogpost which shows plaque situated at Bhadra Fort telling an important truth about its etymology which is rarely recorded in history. All other websites are Government official websites. Others are news or book references. --Nizil (talk) 10:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- If this were an FA or GA nomination, I would also insist on that photo of the plaque being removed from the sources, since I don't think it's an appropriate source. Here, the standards are a little lower, however, so I'll let it pass. Those websites promoting tourism, however, are clearly inappropriate. It's completely unclear what sort of expertise the writers of those texts have, so I don't think they qualify as reliable.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am removing those unreliable tourism websites. One of them is run by an author who have written city guides and many books on Ahmedabad city. See Books. Still I am removing them as it does not affect the content. I added a news source instead of it. Now is it OK?--Nizil (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Looks good to me.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Carabinieri, can I ask you to give the final approval tick when you're satisfied that all the sourcing is reliable? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, of course, sorry.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
