Template:Did you know nominations/Tarns, Cumbria
- 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 13:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Tarns, Cumbria
[edit]- ... that a farm was operating at Tarns, Cumbria, as early as the year 1200?
Created by Pitipaci (talk). Self nominated at 02:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- References 5 & 6 are unreliable as they are genealogy sites where anyone can write anything, not edited works. Ref 6, which supports the hook, can be replaced by the original source: [1] which the message board is just copying. An alternate for ref 5 should be found or the text removed. - Interesting:
| QPQ: None required. |
Overall: 
Article borders on original research at times (e.g. street signs, Google maps), but I'm inclined to give it a pass there; this is DYK, not GA after all. Otherwise, all is good other than the RS issue noted above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Pitipaci: It's been more than a month since this was last reviewed but nothing has been done to correct the sourcing issue highlighted. Are you still working on this nomination or should I mark this as stale? Fuebaey (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Fuebaey: Sorry about that! I'd completely forgotten about this while working on other things. I can't find a replacement for the source that has been objected to. Given some more time I'm sure I could but since Did You Know is about "new and recently updated" articles, and given that as you say more than a month has passed, perhaps we can shelve this for now. In the future it will hopefully get a significant revamp and if it meets the criteria it may be resubmitted. Thanks for bringing this to my attention! Pitipaci (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Pitipaci: It's been more than a month since this was last reviewed but nothing has been done to correct the sourcing issue highlighted. Are you still working on this nomination or should I mark this as stale? Fuebaey (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
No replacement for problematic source; nominator suggests shelving the nomination. Marking for closure as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
