Template:Did you know nominations/Old Nupe Market


 * 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: rejected by sst ✈  09:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Old Nupe Market

 * ... that while some sources claim that the Old Nupe Market in Matara, Sri Lanka was built by the Dutch, they claim that it was built by the British?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ida Shepard Oldroyd

Created/expanded by Dan arndt (talk). Nominated by Mobile Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) at 14:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC).


 * Comment only I've tweaked the hook wording, as "the Dutch, the Dutch" was somewhat inelegant and the second mention redundant. Edwardx (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New enough, long enough (Prose size: 1762 characters (296 words)), within policy (all paragraphs properly sourced and referenced), hook less than 200 characters and (somewhat) interesting, QPQ pass. --  P 1 9 9   ✉ 02:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg This has been returned from prep. As noted by Cowlibob on the WT:DYK page, the promoted hook, as modified to "that while some sources claim that the Dutch built Old Nupe Market in Matara, Sri Lanka, a Dutch website claims that the British built it", was not supported by reliable sources. The "Cultural Heritage Connections" site is a wiki that anyone can contribute to, and clearly cannot be considered reliable—it's the Dutch website in question. The Sri Lankan website (thenationaltrust.lk) does not claim it was built by the British, they start with "believe" and follow that up with "probably". And there's only one cited site ("some sources" requires more than that) for the Dutch-built claim, the Sri Lankan Daily News. The 1775 date (for when the Dutch would have built it, according to the article) is not in that Daily News article, and there's no sign where it came from. At this point, a new hook is needed that doesn't involve claims of which country built it. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset: I nominated a bunch of other users' articles in an effort to promote the work that was done in Asia Month, and I've come to believe that I'm not cut out for doing that, considering that this is the second or third out of 10 that's had an issue I didn't catch. Oh well. How's this:
 * ALT1: ... that the Old Nupe Market in Matara is believed to be one of the few remaining Dutch colonial buildings in Sri Lanka?
 * The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As the creator of the article- I have no problems with the Alt1 - unfortunately I'm overseas so haven't been able to check WP. Dan arndt (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , is this ready to go now? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Squirrel Conspiracy, I honestly don't think it is. (In fact, I've just found some very serious issues.) You still have competing beliefs, so to say it's Dutch ignores the "believe" and "probably" from thenationaltrust.lk site. And the article still makes the seemingly overblown claim of "A number of websites claim the building was built by the Dutch in 1775", with a citation only to the Daily News, which as I noted earlier does not support the 1775 date. I've just been checking the article, and the date appears to come from the amazinglanka.com site, but the article also has some close paraphrasing bordering on copyvio from that site: "according to a Dutch Cultural Heritage site (Cultural Heritage Connections)" and "was handed over to the Hunupitiya Gangarama Temple which ran a cottage industry" are identical in source and article, and the source's "Today this building is used to house various exhibitions." is too similar to the article's "The building is currently used to house various exhibitions."—this last sentence and the first one noted do not reference amazinglanka.com at all. Indeed, I feel the Restoration section in general is too closely paraphrased for comfort. But I'm not sure the section will survive: I seriously doubt that amazinglanka.com qualifies as a reliable source given this text from the "About" page: "The AmazingLanka.com site is developed & maintained by a single individual with a passion for the beauty and the heritage of Sri Lanka." And without the section, the article falls below 1500 prose characters and won't qualify for DYK. There's a lot of work that needs to be done for this article to be eligible for approval. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a shame to hear, but thank you for the review. If the article's author,, wants to handle these issues, there may be a path forward, but I personally don't object if you want to close this nomination as unsuccessful. I'm willing to do a little bit to push articles along, but I'm not going to do a complete re-write, and it looks like that might be what's needed here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Marking for closure: article's author has recently edited yet not responded to talk page request on the issues raised here. Will be removing problematic text—unreliably sourced and close paraphrased—from article, which will leave it too short for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)