Template:Did you know nominations/Coat of arms of Bivona

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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) 08:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Unaddressed in a week

Coat of arms of Bivona

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the Coat of arms of Bivona (pictured) is a shield bearing two branches of oak and olive tree and a crest?

• Reviewed: Dakshayagnam (1938 film), Tata Jagriti Yatra, Under the Tree (film), Garin Nugroho, Dronningegården, Chairil Anwar, Geomagnetic pole, IRAS 17163-3907, Goethe–Schiller Monument (Syracuse)
• Comment: It will be good if the image is included if the nom passes as it will help in supporting the hook.

Created/expanded by Vibhijain (talk). Self nom at 14:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• There are several problems with this article. Although length and date are fine, the hook is not very interesting, and I'm hard pressed to come up with a better one. Also, the image rights are questionable (it doesn't state what it was scanned from and just claims that the uploader owns the rights), and the same can be said for one of the other images in the article itself. (Also, is there a reason why two of the coat of arms images have the oak and olive branches on opposite sides of the shield?) Otherwise, the article uses two non-free images, both at fairly high resolution. The second sentence of the lead is overly long and needs to be split/clarified. The article as a whole seems to be based on a featured article on the Italian Wiki, but it seems to be only a partial translation. In fact, the article states: "Below are the descriptions of three municipal seals of Bivona of 1593, the 1638 and 1801," yet it stops at 1638 (whereas the Italian article continues on). I have to assume good faith on the sources, because I do not have access to the works cited, and the online material is in a language I cannot read. Unfortunately, this article needs a lot of work. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• The nom is getting quite old, and there's been no reply or changes to the article in over a week. As it stands, this article does not meet DYK requirements. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)