Template:Did you know nominations/Tourism in Brunei


 * 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 ✈  10:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Tourism in Brunei

 * ... that visitors are expected to follow some Islamic etiquette while touring Brunei?


 * ALT1:... that non-Muslim tourists are allowed in Islamic mosques in Brunei, however, proper attire required?
 * Reviewed: Chuíxián Sān Chǐ

Created by Human3015 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg . New enough check, long enough check, QPQ done, policy: the article is full of weasel words: "According to some sources, Brunei is not particularly strict Islamic country"; need to be fixed. I assume good faith on the citation, but the hook itself is not particularly interesting, as this is the same case in most Muslim countries. Perhaps you need to find another interesting alternatives.--Rochelimit (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that this article has been reviewed 2 weeks ago. Still, ALT1 is not much common in all Islamic countries, in Islamic countries non-Muslims are not allowed in Islamic mosques, even in liberal countries like India, non-Muslims are not allowed or not welcomed to enter in Mosques, they can see it from outside. But in Brunei, non-muslim tourists are allowed in enter in Mosques, thats why ALT1 is interesting. Anyway, I have removed that weasel word, I will provide another alt..
 * ALT2: ... that 95% of tourists in Brunei arrive via a land route?

--- Human 3015   TALK   14:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have done some copy-edit on article, also provided ALT2 above. Though there are sources for Islamic etiquette still I have provided this UK government advisory on tourism in Brunei. Hope I have fixed problems. -- Human 3015   TALK   16:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg: ok so no weasels detected. FYI ALT1 is actually really common: among other countries, Turkey, Indonesia, and Arab Emirates do it regularly and even provide a mosque tour for tourists. So back to ALT2; it is not particularly interesting. I add ALT3 that I think could be more interesting. Actually there is a lot of interesting article from the the UK government advisory if you would like to add those. But I think for now ALT3 approved for me (I took ALT1 out as well).--Rochelimit (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Rochelimit, people who propose hooks are not eligible to review them; as you proposed ALT3, an independent reviewer will need to check it to see whether it meets the various hook criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, thanks for the reminder . That's not what I meant, I am merely suggesting . So let me delete that ALT3 and suggesting Human3015 this hook: ... that the relatively strong Brunei dollar drives tourists away from visiting Brunei?--Rochelimit (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Rochelimit, at this point I'm afraid you'd be ineligible to review that hook whether as an ALT3 or as the suggestion above, since it's yours either way. We really do need to find a new reviewer and, at this point, the only hook remaining is the original one. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think ALT2 was better, most of tourists in most of countries arrive via air route, but in Brunei 95% arrive via land route which is interesting thing.-- Human 3015   TALK   22:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, please continue what I have left.--Rochelimit (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT3: ... that the relatively strong Brunei dollar drives tourists away from visiting Brunei?
 * I have added ALT3 also. Hope it is fine now. -- Human 3015   TALK   14:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer still needed to check the hooks for accuracy and sourcing and to give opinion on their interest level. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg ALT2 seems reasonably interesting but, in checking this, I find that the article has bigger problems. That hook is supported by a source which states that the number of visitors in 2014 was 3.8 million.  But the article says that the number in 2014 was 78,436, which it got from another source.  Yet another source cited by the article gives the number as "approximately 250,000–270,000".  These numbers are wildly inconsistent.  The sources seem to be press-release material and it's not clear that we can rely upon any of them.  The article would need more clean-up and some better sources before we could promote it. Andrew D. (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review. As of now I have removed disputed content from article.-- Human 3015   TALK   22:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Human3015, I have struck ALT2, but your removal of that one statement doesn't seem to address Andrew D.'s conclusion of The article would need more clean-up and some better sources before we could promote it. He was pointing out that the sources used seem to be press-release material and it's not clear that we can rely upon any of them. If you don't plan on finding reliable, non-press-release-based sources—or if none such exist—then we should probably close the nomination. Please let us know your plans. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, The Brunei Times and Borneo Bulletin are the national news papers of Brunei and probably most reliable sources for Brunei related articles. Still I have posted it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Southeast Asia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Travel and Tourism and Talk:Brunei to get attention of interested users. I have also requested copy edit at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Unfortunately nomination was approved in good faith earlier but later disapproved. If no improvement happens in article in next one week then it should be closed. Thanks. -- Human 3015   TALK   20:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg It's been well over a week, so I'm marking it for closure per your statement above and a lack of significant improvement. And I'm not comfortable with you stating that the nomination was approved in good faith when it was actually approved in error: Rochelimit was approving his own hook which is not allowed, so no valid approval was ever made, and shouldn't be relevant. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)