Template:Did you know nominations/Asilo de San Vicente de Paul
- 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: promoted by 97198 (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Asilo de San Vicente de Paul
[edit]
... that 200 people died when the Asilo de San Vicente de Paul orphanage (building pictured) was burned during World War II?
Created by ClaireMRA (talk). Nominated by Carlojoseph14 (talk) at 11:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC).
Article is new enough and long enough. There is a free pic in the article so I added that to the nom. Hook is correctly formatted. Article has inline refs at the end of each para and one immediately after the stated hook fact (I added that one). Philafrenzy (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Continuing the review now the internet is back, I found no copyvios or close paraphrasing but two of the sources are not reliable, No. 5 is a Wordpress blog and No. 7 World Heritage Encyclopedia is crowd sourced including from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a source for itself. Neither appears to be essential to the article and they could probably both be removed. The source for the number of deaths is the orphanage itself. Since this is the key fact of the hook, ideally we would have independent verification of the number and cause of the deaths. It's not a DYK issue but personally I found the third paragraph of the history section confusing as I was unsure who the people were. Also is the huge map essential? If it was removed, the second pic could be moved to the right which would make the article a lot easier to read IMHO. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi @Philafrenzy:, I think you forgot the vote. Is it good to go? --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- No. I have only done half the review! More shortly. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oops. Sorry. Take time. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Some of the links are not loading for me right now so I will continue later. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have continued my review above so that it is all in one place. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Removed ref no. 5, a wordpress blog since its is also cited in the two refs, made minor tweak. I think you are talking of ref 6? Removed also ref 6 since another ref in the line cites it. Would you like to change the hook?
- ALT1: ... that Sister Asuncion Ventura used her inheritance to establish the Asilo de San Vicente de Paul orphanage in Manila? --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Replied @Philafrenzy:, --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's nearly there. I removed the map temporarily and did light copy editing to make the article easier to read. We still need independent verification of the date, cause and deaths of the fire as this is the key fact of the first hook. The statement that exactly 200 died is a little bit of a round number but that is still the stronger hook if we can verify it. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Replied @Philafrenzy:, --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Philafrenzy:, as of now, no other sites or sources cites the hook on 200 deaths. So, if you will not approve this, I'm suggesting ALT1. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Are there other sources that confirm other aspects of the hook even if not the number of deaths? Newspapers etc, even if offline. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Right now, none --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think we can go with the original hook without independent corroboration, not if we are to claim 200 deaths from bombing. Alt1 is OK but boring. Could you come up with Alts based on the people who met there (still not totally clear who they are and why it matters) or possibly men going there to find wives which is an interesting practice? It should then by GTG. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- What is part of the article is the only available info as of now. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, I struck the original hook. The Alt1 is OK. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Are there other sources that confirm other aspects of the hook even if not the number of deaths? Newspapers etc, even if offline. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
