Template:Did you know nominations/Tourism in Burundi


 * 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  —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  23:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Tourism in Burundi

 * ... that the small but growing tourism industry of Burundi has been decimated by ongoing unrest?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Westerly wind burst

5x expanded by Human3015 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Long enough and recently expanded. The article needed some copyediting, which I've done, but otherwise looked pretty good. The hook, while cited, is rather self-evident, but I'm glad to see articles like this get some love to combat systemic bias. QPQ is present as well.


 * I have modified the hook as well to not have Burundi twice in a six-word span; I hope this improvement is OK for you. Good contribution. Raymie (t • c) 04:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your appreciation and copy-editing. Cheers.-- Human 3015   Let It Go    07:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I have a problem with the hook because it does not seem to reflect the article as a whole. Context is very important. If the tourism sector is small but growing, it can't also be imploding ("decimated"); the example given is hotel occupancy rates down from 50% to 10%, which is the opposite of growth. The Industry paragraph jumps around, starting with GDP data from 2013 and 2014, skipping back to World Bank assessments from 2000 to 2010, and then back to the present day. I think if you're going to use "decimated", it should be in quotes both in the article and in the hook, and "small but growing" dropped as inconsistent with the other sourcing. However, the sourcing as a whole needs to be looked at. The "FlyDubai" article is heavily biased and self-contradictory, so I suggest you drop it. The Encyclopedia of Nations source (FN2), though not used for much, refers to 1998 data and a 2002 US State Department report, so something more recent is probably better. (The accessdate on the first two sources is odd; if you haven't looked at it since 2008, why on earth are you using it here?) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * My take from reading the article was that it was growing in the 2000s, but has since been decimated. The use of the present tense is probably what makes it so confusing. Something along the lines of "... that the historical growth of Burundi's tourism industry has recently been reversed by ongoing unrest?"  Jolly  Ω   Janner  04:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Unfortunately, time has come to close this nomination. Barring a bot edit, no effort has gone into improving this article since 11 January. Certainly, the issues raised by BlueMoonset and Jolly Janner have not been addressed. The nominator has received reminders on his talk page about the nomination, but no response has come forward. Therefore, this nomination has reached the end of the line. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  23:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)