- 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 North America1000 01:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Penrhos Feilw Standing Stones
edit
Penrhos Feilw
Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 06:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
|
|
|
Overall: 
The stones are still "a bit of a mystery", indeed, but I am approving the article, because inline citations cover the hook facts. NearEMPTiness (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)NearEMPTiness (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: The hook not exist in the article. Why?Saff V. (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, this is a very nice little article, but there is nothing in it to back up the hook, much less a specific citation. All of archeology is about finds that are "thought to be" from one date or another, or such and such. It would be good if you either come up with a different hook, or stick something sourced into the article that can jive with this hook. This past weekend, some reader got a real hair up their nose about DYK not being accurate. For someone like that, this hook on the main page would be a bullseye target. Please, rectify this. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have added a few more words from the source that said they were enigmatic. Is that OK? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Cwmhiraeth, that resolves the issue. Thank you for your quick action on this. Reticking here.— Maile (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
The stones are still "a bit of a mystery", indeed, but I am approving the article, because inline citations cover the hook facts. NearEMPTiness (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)NearEMPTiness (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, this is a very nice little article, but there is nothing in it to back up the hook, much less a specific citation. All of archeology is about finds that are "thought to be" from one date or another, or such and such. It would be good if you either come up with a different hook, or stick something sourced into the article that can jive with this hook. This past weekend, some reader got a real hair up their nose about DYK not being accurate. For someone like that, this hook on the main page would be a bullseye target. Please, rectify this. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)