Template:Did you know nominations/Harwell, Nottinghamshire
- 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 Miyagawa (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Harwell, Nottinghamshire
edit- ... that Harwell, Nottinghamshire contains a Grade II listed Pear Tree House which has a portico with two Tuscan columns and an eight-panelled door?
Created/expanded by Dr. Blofeld (talk), Mhockey (talk). Nominated by Dr. Blofeld (talk) at 14:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Please explain how a wikilink to Google Maps is an adequate citation for the hook?--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The reference is to the British Listed Buildings site. Google maps just backs up what is in the village.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Reviewed Loin Like a Hunting Flame♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- The way it is used, it looks like it gives a citations for the fact "The main feature" but it does not. It has nothing at all to do with the subject. The other source does not give that fact either, so that fact is not referenced in your article. I think the Google reference (which links to the Wikipeda article on Google Maps) lends nothing at all to this article and I would take it out.--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, it verifies that nothing substantial exists in the hamlet aside from the farmhouse.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, first of all, neither Wikipedia nor any other wiki-source, like IMDB are considered reliable sources. And secondly, where in that article does it even mention the farmhouse?--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea why you would even compare wikipedia or imdb or even mention it in this context. The source verifies the information given in the hook here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The citation that you give for "The main feature" says Google Maps and links here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps . It is a wikipedia article for Google maps. It does not say anything at all about your topic. And the second source does not give that fact. I am done with this.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Google maps is cited in numerous GAs in exactly the same manner anyway. And if you look at it on google maps [1]♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- The hook has been changed and the nom has asked me to continue the review, but I think someone else should take it from here. --Ishtar456 (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, its your duty to see an article you review is properly assessed. The initial hook which you saw as problematic for verification purposes has now been addressed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, the hook was changed on March 4. You did not put it in an "ALT" so that it would be noticeable. You also did not mention it in your request on my user page for me to look at it again. Not wanting to look at something I had already look at several times and end up seeing the same thing, I told you that I would not continue with this. I was not trying to be difficult, no harm was intended. But the way this is being presented here it looks like I was the reason this was held up when in fact it was because you did not change the hook until yesterday. I also thought that some of your communications with me off this template were unnecessarily contentious, which it why I felt someone else should finish the review.--Ishtar456 (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, its your duty to see an article you review is properly assessed. The initial hook which you saw as problematic for verification purposes has now been addressed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
