Template:Did you know nominations/Pettakere cave

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 LlywelynII 10:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Pettakere cave

(

)

... that the Pettakere cave in Indonesia has hand print paintings (example pictured) estimated to be between 35,000 and 40,000 years old?

Reviewed: Heather Stewart-Whyte

Created by BabbaQ (talk), Werldwayd (talk). Nominated by BabbaQ (talk) at 23:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC).

This ain't going anywhere until the article is copyedited a bit. I mean, you've got glaring mistakes (such as missing spaces between words). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

If there are "glaring mistakes" please point them out because I do not see them. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I have requested another user to take a look at this article as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"wereestimated" is my favourite so far. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Done and done.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I've copyedited, and left comments. The copyedit left the article a little short, but your sources go into considerably more detail that you can use (for instance, the translation of the cave's name). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your inputs. Always needed. I will work on the article a bit more.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the latest edit have solved the length issue at least.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, rest of the review: image is too big in the hook here, needs to be brought to 100px. Article is long enough, grammar's been fixed up adequately, hook fact is cited, but the Nature reference is untraceable without an article title. In fact, most of the references could use more clean-up. Relying on scripts is not a good move. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Done and done. The last thing about the sources, I can see what I can do. Otherwise I leave it up to the closing user to see if the script sources are adequate. (as it has been on all other articles that I have had gone to DYK). Thanks for your assistance again.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. Referencing is still subpar. What makes donsmaps.com reliable? Travelblog? Kata Ilmu? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

More fixes has been made (and more to come). This is up to DYK level. I will leave it up to the closing user now. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Still not up to DYK level. This source is from a travel agency. Certainly not an WP:RS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said I leave it up to the closing user. I see no problem with the source as of now.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine then, sourcing issues still unaddressed (WP:DYK rule 4: "Nominations should be rejected if an inspection reveals that they are not based on reliable sources, violate WP:BLP, or have problems with the close paraphrasing or copyright violations of images and/or text."). ~~There's also the fact that the image doesn't show up well at 100px (a crop would be better) but that's not as much of a show stopper.~~ (Crop provided) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC) (edit: 01:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC))
If you think this is harsh, please, do try and run this without any fixes. WT:DYK is filled with much harsher responses to articles which are not up to snuff but get passed anyways. Also, if this were a GA review, I'd be asking why you are relying on the popular press and don't cite a single academic article (I'd also be failing for a lack of comprehensiveness, considering how much of the information you haven't included from the sources already used, but then you already think I'm harsh). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I went through the article, removed the last non-RS, added more information from the existing sources to flesh out the description, and formatted the references. It's in very good shape now. The page creator has added several book references per Crisco's suggestion. New enough, long enough, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Hook ref verified and cited inline. I tweaked the hook to make it tighter. Image is pd. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Image is CC, not PD (why does nobody understand the difference?). If the page creator had informed me that s/he had added book sources and removed the non-RSes, I could have returned to this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If you had actually taken a look at the article you would have seen it. Good that Yoninah came and sorted this out for you.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I had, at the time I made the last comment, at which time the article looked like this. If you do not respond here, and you say that you "see no problem with the source as of now" (suggesting you don't want to address my concerns), I should not be required to check the article every day to see if you changed your mind (as you did; those additions are all after you went to User:Hawkeye7 and basically said "I'm not working with that ***"). "Good that Yoninah came and sorted this out for you" should be "Good that Yoninah came and sorted this out for [BabbaQ]"; the reviewer is not the one who has to remove non-reliable sources. If this is the degree of professionalism you show at DYK, then you should not be contributing. Period. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

So it was personal (for whatever reason) good to know. I made my last edit at the article on 22 November at 19:02 and you made your latest assessment of the article on 23 November, and yes if you make comments about the current state of the article, one would assume that you have actually looked through the article again. As you yourself had taken on the task of being the reviewer. I have been through DYK processes for several years and has never been treated like this (for example the most viewed DYK of the month at DYKstats of November I created). So you might want to take your own suggestion to heart my friend. Take a DYK break if you can not handle the discussions and possible criticism in a professional way. I will leave it at that as it is becoming more evident by the minute that this is a meta-debate. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
By the way Wikistalking is not OK. Even though I agree with you on Florence Valentin and the other article doing two reviews within 10 minutes seems strange. Especially when the two reviews are on articles made by a user that you are having an "obvious" issue with it becomes very smelly. Just keep that in mind, concerning your earlier comment about professionalism. I will continue to make DYKs and you will continue to be a reviewer, lets not make this into a continued issue.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That was not Wikistalking, as I've explained at my talk page. If you wish to make such accusations, or file complaints, do so at the correct venue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
As a side note: it is interesting that ultimately Yoninah ended up removing the non-RS, after you refused to do so. That you chose to ignore my feedback, as a reviewer, and depend on someone else cleaning up the mess (excluding me taking a good 15 minutes to actually get the article's prose presentable, and provided an appropriate DYK MP image), is concerning. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)