528:
mean by #6 and #7 not being "prime sources". Is there information in the article based on those sources? The "information" in #9 merely appears to an annotation to a painting that is being documented on a university website. #11 is a website for booking hotel rooms in the area the lighthouse located in, that's hardly a reliable source. In any case, I don't see any indication of "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" here. #13 appears to be a personal website of a certain Mr. Mark
Wilkinson. I don't see why that's reliable. To be honest, I really don't have the time to be going through the sources repeatedly. For this nomination to go forward, all sources cited in the article need to be reliable. If an unreliable source is superfluous anyway, then it needs to be removed. If you believe any of the sources I've listed above minus #2 are reliable, please describe how they meet the
710:
90 characters of text. This is significant because with the elimination of other dubious sources and their information, the article is now only at 1438 characters according to DYKcheck, not enough to qualify; another 90 characters would take it down to 1348. The
Location section is puzzling, because it doesn't seem to give the location of the lighthouse itself but may instead be giving the location of a (nearby?) hotel at the mouth of a river, and repeats a questionable claim to it being the lighthouse's host hotel. (Even as rewritten, the claim is attributed to the "travel industry", which is highly amorphous.) While I recognize that a great deal of work has gone into this nomination, it appears to me that there simply is not enough information from reliable sources to make an article that can meet the length requirements of DYK.
184:
500:. 4 is an organisation not a personal review. 6/7 ive answered above. 9 is USC from academia and all info is included as to where its from. 10 is removed now. 11 is a official company with oversight and contacts, its not dubious (if it was it would be bankrupt/shut without biz as its more like lonely planet and verifable/trustworthy). 12 is verifable from 15 (though we could easily remove this). 13 i mentioned above, though would like to see WHY it seems dubious. then we can look for others if determined as such. 14 mentioned above, while 16 has been removed.
425:
706:
600:
378:
399:
353:
published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated."--
352:
demands that: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight", and "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book
709:
While the most recent reviewer has not been on
Knowledge for over 10 days to respond, the article still has significant—and I think intractable—problems. The reliability of the BARTG source—an amateur group, with no indication of where they got their information—remains dubious, and it's supporting
527:
First, if a source is unreliable, but not needed, then why not remove it? It looks to me like the information in source #3 is user-generated. The report in source #4 appears to be written by one person. There is no indication of "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I'm not sure what you
462:
I'm not sure I follow what you're saying, but the following sources appear unreliable to me: 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 (I'm referring to the numbers of the footnotes they are cited in). That's almost all of the sources in the article. I say they appear unreliable, because nothing
495:
2 is corroborated as the ARLHS number frm the org. (which is what lighthouses use (see infobox, its notable enough for WP)). 3 is the same collection not a forum (the website HAS a forum but its not from the forum nor user-generated)..at any rate the dae (which is what is cited) is coroborated
381:
I think the point here is that the original unreliable sources need to be removed, and only reliable ones remain. The reliable ones by themselves need to substantiate the article's information. There hasn't been any action on this article since May 4; it is just long enough at 1536 characters
611:
is a company, doesn't make the website reliable. The source is being used to substantiate the claim that "Hotel du Phare is known as the "host hotel" of the lighthouse". That's clearly not appropriate considering that it's a website where you can book rooms at Hotel du Phare. Also,
138:) has also noted that the source on which the hook is based is "dubious" reliable. There is a consensus among the reviewers—myself, Carabinieri, and BlueMoonset—that the source is unreliable, rendering promotion of the article to the main page untenable.
386:—"one of two remaining structures"—are not in the article, and therefore cannot be used in a hook and I have struck ALT1. This information would need to be added to the article with a reliable inline citation for ALT1 to be restored and used.
102:
by the nominator without discussion with me. As noted at the top of this page, once a DYK nomination is closed, it should not be reversed "unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page". I am therefore restoring my
300:
i added a supplementary source for the third one. The others dont seem deeitful in people having been there (with evidence) making statements. The bit abut Lobe is also provable elsewhere. (which i added 2 more supplementary sources
183:
255:
The picture is of the original lighthouse, there is another picture of the modern one which we could use that is also on the page. In which case perhaps the hook could say something about the removal of the keeper's
547:
3 did appear as such to me, but looking at the ite i couldnt find it to be user-generated. as theres no way to change. Seems like the site dedicated to lighthouses as it is, has the data (with the date verifable
552:
4 is from a "team's report" as cited as pat of an organisation/society, with other members the credibility of the team has to be reliable scientifically. Its not an opinion (as in the other travel sites)
419:
and a legacy, which is a different wording f the hook) not the self-published comments (an esta blished groups site visit, which is not a tourist's report bck). Ill remove them and add more in a day or
628:
isn't reliable, yet it's also still in there. Additionally, the claim that "The lighthouse was built in 1906" is sourced to
Britannica, which does not contain that information.--
732:
561:
9 hmm, you seem right, but the information was also found on the new sources i added per the last revision. (See current version source 10/11 for the same info)
607:
and they may be members of an organization, but I still don't think this is a reliable source. This still falls under "self-published material". The fact that
463:
caught my eye that indicated reliability, so I might be wrong. By the way, most of the other sources that I haven't listed here don't look that great either.--
119:) wrote, "i have answered everythign and am awaiting a response, you cant punish me because the reviewer loses interest". He did not address the concern about
219:
565:
11 is a private company, not a personal website. It has the network in these places otherwise it wouldnt make the sale as unreliable and would not exist.
641:
Arent all papers/polls cmmissioned and published by an organisation and carried out by its members "self-published"? It doesnt mean its disinengous.
36:
315:
requires more than for people to have been there. I don't think the sources are deceitful. They just don't meet the reliability standards.--
135:
79:
17:
116:
142:
44:
431:
The dubious sources SEEM like: 6/7 (but its corroborated by 8 and is only an additional piece, not a prime source) +
282:
167:
687:
Feel free to ask an i will anser. All but 1 issue is sorted and i though that was dubious for the last 14 days.
685:
i have answered everythign and am awaiting a response, you cant punish me because the reviewer loses interest.
608:
246:
201:
715:
633:
537:
487:
468:
407:
391:
358:
342:
320:
292:
128:
72:
40:
625:
435:+ 13 (possible, but it is not user-generated) + 14/15 (but coroborated by 16 (And for this purpose)) +
556:
6/7 are the supplementary sources to the main one #8 thats credible, but per above ill remove them.
382:
according to DYKcheck for a new article, but the sourcing issues remain. Among them, the facts in
457:
279:
146:
87:
654:
The virtual tourist site supplements the other source, we could remove it (must have slipped me)
617:
29:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below.
711:
692:
678:
629:
580:
533:
505:
483:
464:
444:
403:
387:
354:
338:
331:
316:
306:
288:
268:
234:
193:
150:
124:
109:
91:
68:
82:) deemed an unreliable source. I agree. The British Amateur Radio Teledata Group (BARTG), "
668:
The academic website is supplementary as well. All the content is verified on that source.
621:
424:
613:
285:
726:
569:
13 is the supplementary source to the other reliable one, which per above ill remove.
705:
599:
377:
529:
349:
312:
649:
with the caveat that it was called as such, insead of merely saying it IS as such?
398:
688:
674:
576:
501:
440:
337:
I'm afraid that this article is still based on a number of unreliable sources.--
327:
302:
278:
There are some sourcing issues here. These sources don't strike me as reliable:
264:
105:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
326:
But i added additional sources a well. They now supplement what the other says
205:
141:
If Lihaas would like to overturn this close, please file an appeal at
47:), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page.
672:
There are multitude of sources that cited the date...ill add others.
83:
84:
one of the oldest data communication enthusiast groups in the world
604:
242:
120:
64:
664:
hotelscombined is a supplementary source, which can be removed.
60:
to promote after 49 days due to the use of unreliable sources.
478:
The article is undergoing changes. Those numbers refer to
415:
The hook is sourced to the RS (mind you it says from the
573:
479:
172:
99:
620:
is also still in there, but doesn't appear reliable.
624:
has the same problems as source #11. We agreed that
123:by replacing it with a reliable source. Reviewer
8:
603:Multiple people may have been involved with
49:No further edits should be made to this page
543:Supplementary source...but ill remove them.
616:is just a list of user-generated reviews.
659:Will remove and/or supplement factacular
402:Unreliable sources abound. —
271:). Self nom at 13:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
241:is one of two remaining structures in
7:
733:Failed DYK nominations from May 2012
24:
18:Template:Did you know nominations
704:
598:
423:
397:
376:
182:
121:http://www.bartg.org.uk/tj3.asp
65:http://www.bartg.org.uk/tj3.asp
32:Please do not modify this page.
1:
86:", is not a reliable source.
94:) 18:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
718:) 16:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
695:) 15:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
681:) 10:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
540:) 23:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
447:) 20:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
345:) 21:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
153:) 19:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
143:Knowledge talk:Did you know
45:Knowledge talk:Did you know
37:this nomination's talk page
749:
636:) 19:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
583:) 06:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
508:) 23:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
490:) 22:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
471:) 22:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
410:) 03:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
394:) 19:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
361:) 21:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
334:) 22:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
323:) 17:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
309:) 09:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
482:version of the article.--
295:) 23:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
63:The DYK hook is cited to
253:Will get to my QPQ soon
41:the article's talk page
645:How about adding the
263:Created/expanded by
67:, which DYK reviewer
532:I've quoted above.--
348:Just to be precise:
245:, Cameroon from the
417:German colonial era
247:German colonial era
239:(original pictured)
202:German colonialists
198:(original pictured)
461:
272:
200:was built by the
740:
708:
602:
455:
427:
401:
380:
262:
235:Kribi lighthouse
194:Kribi lighthouse
186:
159:Kribi lighthouse
34:
748:
747:
743:
742:
741:
739:
738:
737:
723:
722:
721:
251:
188:
179:
177:
173:Article history
161:
56:The result was
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
746:
744:
736:
735:
725:
724:
720:
719:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
669:
666:
661:
656:
651:
642:
638:
637:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
566:
563:
558:
553:
550:
544:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
492:
491:
473:
472:
429:
428:
421:
412:
411:
395:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
297:
296:
260:
259:
258:
257:
232:"... that the
222:
210:
209:
180:
176:
175:
170:
168:Back to T:TDYK
164:
162:
160:
157:
156:
155:
98:The close was
54:
53:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
745:
734:
731:
730:
728:
717:
713:
707:
703:
702:
694:
690:
686:
683:
682:
680:
676:
673:
670:
667:
665:
662:
660:
657:
655:
652:
650:
648:
643:
640:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
610:
606:
601:
597:
596:
582:
578:
575:
572:
571:
570:
567:
564:
562:
559:
557:
554:
551:
549:
545:
542:
541:
539:
535:
531:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
507:
503:
499:
494:
493:
489:
485:
481:
477:
476:
475:
474:
470:
466:
459:
458:edit conflict
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
446:
442:
438:
434:
426:
422:
418:
414:
413:
409:
405:
400:
396:
393:
389:
385:
379:
375:
374:
360:
356:
351:
347:
346:
344:
340:
336:
335:
333:
329:
325:
324:
322:
318:
314:
311:
310:
308:
304:
299:
298:
294:
290:
286:
283:
280:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
270:
266:
254:
250:
248:
244:
240:
237:
236:
231:
226:
223:
221:
217:
214:
213:
212:
211:
207:
203:
199:
196:
195:
191:... that the
190:
189:
187:
185:
174:
171:
169:
166:
165:
158:
154:
152:
148:
144:
139:
137:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
115:
111:
107:
101:
97:
96:
95:
93:
89:
85:
81:
78:
74:
70:
66:
61:
59:
52:
50:
46:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
684:
671:
663:
658:
653:
646:
644:
568:
560:
555:
546:
497:
436:
432:
430:
416:
383:
261:
252:
238:
233:
229:
228:
224:
215:
197:
192:
181:
140:
132:
113:
104:
76:
62:
58:no consensus
57:
55:
48:
31:
28:
712:BlueMoonset
630:Carabinieri
622:This source
618:This source
614:this source
534:Carabinieri
496:elsewehere
484:Carabinieri
465:Carabinieri
404:Crisco 1492
388:BlueMoonset
355:Carabinieri
339:Carabinieri
317:Carabinieri
289:Carabinieri
125:BlueMoonset
69:Carabinieri
548:elsewhere)
220:Boudougate
609:source 11
605:source #4
727:Category
256:cottage?
216:Reviewed
136:contribs
117:contribs
80:contribs
574:removed
498:as well
225:Comment
206:Kamerun
127: (
108: (
71: (
689:Lihaas
675:Lihaas
577:Lihaas
502:Lihaas
441:Lihaas
328:Lihaas
303:Lihaas
265:Lihaas
147:Cunard
131:
112:
106:Lihaas
103:close.
100:undone
88:Cunard
75:
647:claim
530:WP:RS
350:WP:RS
313:WP:RS
243:Kribi
16:<
716:talk
693:talk
679:talk
634:talk
626:this
581:talk
538:talk
506:talk
488:talk
480:this
469:talk
445:talk
408:talk
392:talk
384:ALT1
359:talk
343:talk
332:talk
321:talk
307:talk
301:too)
293:talk
269:talk
230:ALT1
151:talk
129:talk
110:talk
92:talk
73:talk
287:.--
204:in
43:or
729::
437:17
433:10
420:2.
284:,
281:,
249:?"
227::
218::
163:(
145:.
39:,
714:(
691:(
677:(
632:(
579:(
536:(
504:(
486:(
467:(
460:)
456:(
443:(
439:.
406:(
390:(
357:(
341:(
330:(
319:(
305:(
291:(
267:(
208:?
178:)
149:(
133:·
114:·
90:(
77:·
51:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
