Template:Did you know nominations/Canang sari

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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Length, copying

Canang sari

(

)

... that canang sari (pictured), one of daily Balinese Hinduism people offerings, is made from the palm leaves?

Created by Yogwi21 (talk). Self nom at 08:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Date, hook, and article creation verified. Erick (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

There are serious problems with this nomination. The primary source is not only what appears to be a "member" blog on a travel site, and thus not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards, but much of it is copied verbatim, such as the second and third sentences in the "Making method" section, and major portions of the "Usage" section. Under the circumstances, I very much doubt this article can be brought up to DYK requirements, though I thought the image proposed was a good one. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your review. What about the current source? Yogwi21^talk 10:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I had no problem with the Advocate source per se, but I didn't think an American source claiming the inclusion of incense should be counted on over Indonesian sources that carefully describe what is included but do not mention incense (nor is it shown in the pictures). The new balitouring.com source, on the other hand, did not seem to be reliable: it's both a tourist site and one written in poor English, so I don't think it's brief information on canang sari is sufficiently trustworthy, and certainly doesn't support "several" people using those leaves—either they're used or they're not, and I didn't think this was a reliable enough claim. Unfortunately, by the time I was done cutting out this information and doing some rewording, after yesterday's removal of the copied material, the article was down to 1415 prose characters, not enough for DYK. I'm very sorry. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)