Template:Did you know nominations/109 Washington Street

The following discussion 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

109 Washington Street

(

)

... that 109 Washington Street (pictured) was built in Syria but now is in Manhattan, NYC?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Toyota 92C-V
Comment: Stuggling for hook ideas. I have put a humourish one up suggesting that it has moved; with Little Syria being demolished or something...? I welcome any more from other editors.

Created/expanded by Tfine80 (talk). Nominated by Rcsprinter123 (talk) at 15:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I like the hook - could be a good one for April Fools in fact. Miyagawa (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend changing Syria to Little Syria- I doubt that the average Wikipedian would immediately know the difference, but otherwise this looks like it's good to go. The article is long enough, everything is sourced, and the hook is neutral.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not happy with this article and have removed it from the prep area. The primary issue is that the article is copied largely from this report. The edit summary confirms this, stating the report has been released under CC-BY-SA and GDFL, but I have seen no evidence of this, as the website it is published under [1] states that information is under copyright. I believe that confirmation will need to be provided via OTRS that the report has been released.
Even if the information is released under CC-BY-SA, I do have plagiarism concerns, so much is straight copy/paste. What's more, the source is self published, leading to original research and neutrality concerns. Finally, I'm dubious on whether the topic is notable. It's certainly not ready for the main page as it is. Worm^TT(talk) 13:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That's funny, I didn't pick that report up when I checked it for copypasting. I wonder how it escaped me. At least I can't be blamed for it though, this time. Rcsprinter (lecture) @ 15:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A bit surprising, since it was the first reference and mentioned in the first edit summary. Worm^TT(talk) 15:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)