Template:Did you know nominations/Naked Jungle
- 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: rejected by Allen3 talk 09:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Naked Jungle
[edit]- ... that readers of the Radio Times voted the nudist gameshow Naked Jungle as the worst British television programme ever?
5x expanded by The Almightey Drill (talk). Self nominated at 23:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC).
- Not ready. The citation this hinges upon is to ukgameshows.com which is like Wikipedia and lacks the editorial control to be considered a reliable source, especially something controversial. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- The Radio Times citation is from The Guardian. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Just so we are clear, I see "The programme was made by the same producers as CITV's children's gameshow Jungle Run, and used the same set as well as following the same format, apart from having individual winners instead of a winning team." is cited to UKGameshows.com and the page uses the cite a total of 5 times.[1] Now. I do see the Radio Times comment, but the actual line using the "same set" is not cited to it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- The Radio Times citation is from The Guardian. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not ready. The citation this hinges upon is to ukgameshows.com which is like Wikipedia and lacks the editorial control to be considered a reliable source, especially something controversial. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The hook is sourced, but the article itself needs more reliable sources to meet policy for verifiability. It should not pass as a result. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Fair play, you know Wikipedia better than me. I best learn from this and try with another page another time. Thank you. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- @The Almightey Drill: it could still run if the reliance on the unreliable source (in the article, not the hook) is dropped or backed up by something more reliable. I'm a bit cautious because just yesterday a pretty obvious bad hook went through and we had a blatant hoax get promoted as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
There have been no edits to the article in the past three weeks, and no indication from the nominator that any further work is contemplated. Closing the nomination as unsuccessful due to sourcing issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
