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
Yoninah (
talk) 22:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I've tried to fix the refs and can't, and don't have the first clue about pictures so that's not going to happen. The Jacobins is a genuinely significant church that somehow didn't have an article which is why I created one. If there are people who would like to fix its shortcomings that would be wonderful, even if that makes it ineligible for dyk. Cheers,
Awien (
talk) 11:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Fixed refs, I think (the one that was the problem). Thanks for tip, Chrisrus.
Awien (
talk) 12:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Awien I think it would be a great pity if it did not become a DYK; as you say: it is a very notable building. However, I have just edited the article (a little), and I therefor don´t think I should be the one to OK it. Could someone else please review it?
Huldra (
talk) 13:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Wonderful! Grand merci! (The Palmier too would leave me eternally in your debt . . . ). Best,
Awien (
talk) 13:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The feature they're most proud of, this:
[1]. But I don't see it on Commons, alas.
Awien (
talk) 14:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Awien Actually, that link contains a picture...taken from commons! (Now added to the article.) And common have a
whole sub-cat for it, cheers,
Huldra (
talk) 15:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Huldra: Great! And I really appreciate your help. Bien amicalement,
Awien (
talk) 17:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Awien: a pleasure to help, I really hope it will make a DYK. (But it needs a new reviewer now).
This source is still problematic, though: it looks like a blog, which is usually not acceptable; could you find a replacement?
Huldra (
talk) 20:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I've taken out "unique" (who cares anyway), and substituted the Encyclopédie Universalis as the ref.
Awien (
talk) 22:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts have inline citations, the image is appropriately licensed and the article is neutral. The sources are mostly in French and I doubt there are any copyright problems with the article.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 10:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
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
Yoninah (
talk) 22:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I've tried to fix the refs and can't, and don't have the first clue about pictures so that's not going to happen. The Jacobins is a genuinely significant church that somehow didn't have an article which is why I created one. If there are people who would like to fix its shortcomings that would be wonderful, even if that makes it ineligible for dyk. Cheers,
Awien (
talk) 11:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Fixed refs, I think (the one that was the problem). Thanks for tip, Chrisrus.
Awien (
talk) 12:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Awien I think it would be a great pity if it did not become a DYK; as you say: it is a very notable building. However, I have just edited the article (a little), and I therefor don´t think I should be the one to OK it. Could someone else please review it?
Huldra (
talk) 13:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Wonderful! Grand merci! (The Palmier too would leave me eternally in your debt . . . ). Best,
Awien (
talk) 13:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The feature they're most proud of, this:
[1]. But I don't see it on Commons, alas.
Awien (
talk) 14:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Awien Actually, that link contains a picture...taken from commons! (Now added to the article.) And common have a
whole sub-cat for it, cheers,
Huldra (
talk) 15:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Huldra: Great! And I really appreciate your help. Bien amicalement,
Awien (
talk) 17:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Awien: a pleasure to help, I really hope it will make a DYK. (But it needs a new reviewer now).
This source is still problematic, though: it looks like a blog, which is usually not acceptable; could you find a replacement?
Huldra (
talk) 20:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I've taken out "unique" (who cares anyway), and substituted the Encyclopédie Universalis as the ref.
Awien (
talk) 22:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts have inline citations, the image is appropriately licensed and the article is neutral. The sources are mostly in French and I doubt there are any copyright problems with the article.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 10:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)