Template:Did you know nominations/Fireproof banknote
- 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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Fireproof banknote
- ... that soaking a paper banknote in 50% (v/v) alcohol fuel can create a fireproof banknote? Source: "a demonstration of putting banknote, previously soaked in 50% (v/v) alcohol fuel solution, to a flame. The fire is lit and later extinguished by itself without the banknote being burnt." DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00474
- ALT1:... that fireproof banknote can be made by soaking paper banknote in 50% (v/v) alcohol fuel before putting to a flame? Source: "a demonstration of putting banknote, previously soaked in 50% (v/v) alcohol fuel solution, to a flame. The fire is lit and later extinguished by itself without the banknote being burnt." DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00474
Created by Teetee taw (talk) and Taweetham (talk). Nominated by Teetee taw (talk) at 09:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC).
I added the code to my account to do the automatic check on length, but the new page does pass it at over 2,000 characters of prose. There is no problem with bias or copyvio. The article is new enough and QPQ done. I assume good faith on the hook, which is cited to an academic source that I can't access. However, I have to inquire about the claim "Euro banknote is recommended since it is legally permitted to burn it in small amount for educational purpose as there are no depictions of any persons". Unless I am really missing something, the source isn't saying that at all. The source says nothing about a lack of people, nor an exception for educational purposes. The closest I've got is "Member States should not encourage mutilation of euro banknotes or coins for artistic purposes but should tolerate it. Such mutilated banknotes or coins should be considered as unfit for circulation." This doesn't line up with the claim made in the article, unless I'm reading the wrong part. I wouldn't imagine, for example, that laws against destruction of currency would apply to destroying pound sterling in the US, whether or not it had the Queen on it. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Unknown Temptation, sorry for the confusion I have caused. The mentioned statement has been revised. "Educational purposes" is removed while "lack of people" statement has been cited by another source (I have used two sources for that statement but end up citing only one). Teetee taw (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- No need to apologise, we are all human. I assume good faith on the source about the lack of persons. Changing to
as the hook is on an academic source that I can not access, but this is a trustworthy editor. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- No need to apologise, we are all human. I assume good faith on the source about the lack of persons. Changing to
- Unknown Temptation, sorry for the confusion I have caused. The mentioned statement has been revised. "Educational purposes" is removed while "lack of people" statement has been cited by another source (I have used two sources for that statement but end up citing only one). Teetee taw (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
