Template:Did you know nominations/Kribi lighthouse

Kribi lighthouse

 * ... that the Kribi lighthouse (original pictured) was built by the German colonialists in Kamerun?


 * Reviewed: Boudougate
 * Comment: ALT1 "... that the Kribi lighthouse (original pictured) is one of two remaining structures in Kribi, Cameroon from the German colonial era?" Will get to my QPQ soon 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 cottage?

Created/expanded by Lihaas (talk). Self nom at 13:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There are some sourcing issues here. These sources don't strike me as reliable:, , .--Carabinieri (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 too)Lihaas (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:RS 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.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But i added additional sources a well. They now supplement what the other saysLihaas (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that this article is still based on a number of unreliable sources.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be precise: WP:RS 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 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."--Carabinieri (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg 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 according to DYKcheck for a new article, but the sourcing issues remain. Among them, the facts in ALT1—"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. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Unreliable sources abound. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The hook is sourced to the RS (mind you it says from the German colonial era 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 2.
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg

The dubious sources SEEM like: 6/7 (but its corroborated by 8 and is only an additional piece, not a prime source) + 10 + 13 (possible, but it is not user-generated) + 14/15 (but coroborated by 16 (And for this purpose)) + 17 .Lihaas (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 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 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.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is undergoing changes. Those numbers refer to this version of the article.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 elsewehere as well. 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.Lihaas (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 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 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 WP:RS I've quoted above.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Supplementary source...but ill remove them.
 * 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 elsewhere)
 * 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)
 * 6/7 are the supplementary sources to the main one #8 thats credible, but per above ill remove them.
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * 13 is the supplementary source to the other reliable one, which per above ill remove.
 * removedLihaas (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svgple people may have been involved with source #4 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 source 11 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, this source is just a list of user-generated reviews. This source is also still in there, but doesn't appear reliable. This source has the same problems as source #11. We agreed that this 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.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Arent all papers/polls cmmissioned and published by an organisation and carried out by its members "self-published"? It doesnt mean its disinengous.
 * How about adding the claim with the caveat that it was called as such, insead of merely saying it IS as such?
 * The virtual tourist site supplements the other source, we could remove it (must have slipped me)
 * Will remove and/or supplement factacular
 * hotelscombined is a supplementary source, which can be removed.
 * The academic website is supplementary as well. All the content is verified on that source.
 * There are multitude of sources that cited the date...ill add others. Lihaas (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * i have answered everythign and am awaiting a response, you cant punish me because the reviewer loses interest. 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. Lihaas (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg While the most recent reviewer has not been on Wikipedia 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 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. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)