Template:Did you know nominations/Bees for Development

Bees for Development

 * ... that Sting supports Bees for Development?
 * Comment: Must be about the 120th for MonmouthpediA in English, (else 450th) ... have you seen the vid?

Created/expanded by JanetLowore (talk), Mrjohncummings (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 19:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * May 19th please, its MonmouthpediA launch day Victuallers (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Reviewed Monmouth Almhouses Victuallers (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Victuallers, you're going to hate me, but I think our relationship is strong enough to weather the next edit I'm going to perform. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg This is tricky. I've made some more edits and removed an entire section which in my opinion is not of encyclopedic value; one more section needs to be tackled. The problem I see is notability: I don't see any reliable, third-party sources in the article--not even this one, oddly enough. (Also, Victuallers, I don't like that semi-bare templateless way of referencing, but that's just me.) In its current state, and without other sources being brought to the table, it might not withstand AfD. The article needs reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No Hassle - this is why we are here. As you know we are trying to write about everything notable in Monmouth and we had originally ignored what we thought was a "honey shop" when we found it was actually an international charity - based at the back of a honey shop supported by leading campaigners like Sting. The quality of this article is actually amazing when you realise it written by a newbie as practically there first edit. There are some "my web page" bits but there is a core article I beieve about this charity. I am surprised that you reject the Telegraph? Can you explain? I'll have a go at the article and see if I can find more but the scientific papers looked sound to me. However the notability that would get it through AfD IMO is the BBC Radio 4 appeal - they don't give those to unnotable charities. As for style of referencing - hey that is being a bit picky - we'll never have a newbie do that first time. Victuallers (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I've had to cut Tom Seeley--the linked page didn't mention the subject. In fact, the only verified supporter is Sting; the others would need a reference. Footnotes 1 and 2 do not supply enough bibliographic information, and templating them would bring them in line with the other references (italicize titles, etc)--that goes for notes 22 and 23 and maybe others as well. Footnote 13 doesn't verify that "Bees for Development is working with the Rural Development Foundation". In footnote 22, it's not the link but the "associated" PDF that verified the involvement. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Victuallers. You misunderstand: I'm not rejecting the Telegraph article, I'm suggesting it since it's not in the article. (The scientific papers, as you know, discuss bees--not the particular charity.) As for the citations, well, you're in the history tidying up refs, and you're not exactly a newbie at this. I wouldn't reject it on the basis of that, not at all; I'm just saying it's not very pretty. Thanks, and I'll be glad to pass it if you can stick the Telegraph and maybe something else, whatever you find, in there. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Chiming in. Tidied up. Copyedited. Rearranged photo layout. Revised all references, except for #5, which was fine, and #21, not found currently. Article seems notable to me. Anne (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding my two cents again. I thought that these could possibly be useful: You Tube video of Bees for Development Trust and University of East Anglia Beekeeping Society and Bees for Development Journal and The Vancouver Observer and Honeybees of Africa. Also, does anyone know what sources were used for the last quarter of the article? We need more references there. And what Telegraph article did you find? Is this it? The Telegraph I think you should include it. Anne (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the one. Not having it among the reference, and not using it to verify content, seems criminal to me since besides the BBC link it is more reliable than any other--indeed, one could argue that those two are the only two reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd help out and try to move things along some more, so I just added a paragraph on beekeeping at the Monmouthshire farm and included the Telegraph as a reference. Anne (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. All done I think Victuallers (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Still has referencing issues. Also, there is an ISBN issue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't spot those "citation needed"s. Can't say I agree with all of them, but Ive removed the contested fact or added a citation to resolve the issue. Victuallers (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note 11 does not verify that the journal is published regularly ("News about the Commission events are presented regularly in Bees for Development Journal" is not the same thing). That's nitpicking but still. The Darwin Initiative link seems to be dead right now; I'm sure that's temporary. But these are minor issues, I guess. I don't know what Crisco's ISBN problem is, or whether that's been taken care of. I removed one section--a claim of success needs to be supported with independent evidence, not a publication by the organization. But I guess I'm OK with the article as it stands, yes. Crisco, if you agree, please sign off on it, and I'll see you by the pool later today. We have enough towels. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Victuallers got it. I would prefer that the verification issue indicated above ("regularly") be fixed before this goes to the main page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that you find these issues as pivotal but being as you'd prefer the reference to be moved then that is what I have done. Victuallers (talk) 10:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Looks good now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)