Template:Did you know nominations/Sperris Quoit

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 BlueMoonset (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sperris Quoit

(

)

... that despite being over 4000 years old, Sperris Quoit near Zennor, Cornwall, was only rediscovered in 1954?

Created/expanded by Dr. Blofeld (talk), Gilderien (talk). Nominated by Dr. Blofeld (talk) at 17:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Reviewed Student Hidjo.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, this article is measuring in at 1201b, below the minimum 1500 requirement. Chris857 (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Its 1600 now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hook: Interesting, cited, short enough.

Article: New enough, long enough. What makes this a reliable source? Paraphrasing against this source looks okay.

Summary:

Question on the reliability of sourcing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What doesn't make it reliable is more the question?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the burden of evidence is on the one who contributes the source to the article, but here's a question: does the Cornish Ancient Sites Protection Network or website cited have a "reputation for fact checking" or is it respected in its field? It seems to have support from the UK government, but that's not always enough to show reliability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a strange thing the ask as one could say that about any source. One would think an organization which specialises in ancient site protection would care enough to know the facts.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a fairly simple question: how does the site pass WP:RS? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Gilderien's idea below works well too, of course. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I could point out that only one fact is sourced from that website, and it might be easier just to remove it? -- Gilderien Talk Contribs 16:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Per Gilderien, above, I removed the disputed source, as it wasn't really necessary. So this should be good to go. Moswento (talk | contribs) 16:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)