Template:Did you know nominations/Historic Villages of Shirakawa-gō and Gokayama


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Historic Villages of Shirakawa-gō and Gokayama
Source: 'Silk worm raising in a climate such as this requires a large interior space for the silkworm beds and for storage of the mulberry leaves. These requirements led to the development of the Gassho-style houses, with the large interior space inside the roof structure divided into multiple levels to increase usable floor area' from: The Historic Villages of Shirakawa-go and Gokayama - Traditional Houses in the Gassho Style. Saito H. (ed) (1996) p47
 * ... that the tall roof spaces of Japanese houses in the Historic Villages of Shirakawa-gō and Gokayama were built with two or three levels in them for rearing silkworms and storing mulberry leaves?

Source: 'Even today, with Japan's highly-developed country-wide transportation network, the Shirakawa-Gokayama area is still somewhat difficult to approach, and for a time this was called "the last unexplored area of Japan"' from: The Historic Villages of Shirakawa-go and Gokayama - Traditional Houses in the Gassho Style. Saito H. (ed) (1996) p45
 * ALT1:... that the Historic Villages of Shirakawa-gō and Gokayama are a world heritage site, formerly so remote they were the once termed 'the last unexplored area of Japan'?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ellen Thayer Fisher
 * 5x expansion, started 30 March 2017, reached 5x on 31st March

Created/expanded by Nick Moyes (talk). Self-nominated at 10:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg 5x expansion is valid and recent enough, ALT1 hook (my choice) is interesting, supported by source and mentioned in the article. Image has a valid copyright tag. QPQ is in order. Article does not appear to be copyvio, seems neutral enough, but many paragraphs and specific assertions of facts are not supported by inline citation, so please do that. Optionally, please consider diversifying the source. Currently the article relies a lot on a work created by the "Committee for the Commemoration of the Inscription of ...", which gives the impression that the source might be a promotion material, but I'm not an expert on this, so it's up to you. But please add the inline citations to pass the DYK standard. HaEr48 (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. The work I referred to is more of a semi-academic publication, containing much of the material used as part of the application for Inscription as a world heritage site, so I don't think it would be seen as promotional material in the way we might normally think of it. I will gladly address any missing inline citations for the content I added, though am currently out of the country, and will do so on my return. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm back home now, and have added detailed references to all paragraphs which you might have been considered as uncited. On reflection, I would revise my opinion above, in that the publication I've referred to is really quite a significant academic tome on the subject, and in no way promotional in nature. Feel free to add 'citation needed' tags to any sections if you think I've missed these. Happy to go with ALT1. Thanks, 00:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Thanks for addressing the lack of citations, and for the explanation about the main source. We're good to go now. Passing (with AGF because the main source is not available online). HaEr48 (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)