Talk:West Nias Regency
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Did you know nomination[edit]
- 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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 09:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
The nominator has indicated in the discussion that they no longer wish to pursue this.
( )
- ... that West Nias Regency has 41 megalithic sites? Source: Badan Pusat Statistik, Jakarta, 2023, Kabupaten Nias Barat Dalam Angka 2023 (Katalog-BPS 1102001.1225)
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Palembang City Regional House of Representatives
- Comment: QPQ later, new expansion 5x, CE will be appreciated
Created by Nyanardsan (talk). Self-nominated at 02:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/West Nias Regency; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Can't read Indonesian, but the referencing doesn't exactly inspire confidence. This for instance? I really can't say how interesting the hook is (what's the big deal about a place having many large stones) and the sourcing for that is even more dubious. Article as a whole needs much more cleanup and better sourcing IMO. Also, DYKcheck suggests that "Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days..." Thanks, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 17:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Kingoflettuce: I apologize but my sources are reliable. May I ask what's exactly the problem with the sourcing? The source you mentioned previously is a database of Indonesia hospitals which I use to cite that the hospital is D-class. Other sources are Indonesian Statistical Reports and Investment Book for North Sumatra Province which explains a lot of West Nias Regency's economy, among other things with statisics (that I use to complement BPS data). I would like to know why they are problematic. Thank you very much. As for the DYKN problem, I noticed it too but from the amont of bytes, its already 5x im pretty sure and this is the problem with the DYKCheck. Nyanardsan (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- It basically smells like original research to me. Is there a better source than "Badan Pusat Statistik, Jakarta, 2023, Kabupaten Nias Barat Dalam Angka 2023 (Katalog-BPS 1102001.1225)"? Not to be biased against foreign-language sources, but I don't even have a way of seeing that this source exists! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Kingoflettuce: This is the same BPS source. Since the catalog was already cited there I simply use it, but this is the online version which is the same document. [1]https://niasbaratkab.bps.go.id/publication/2023/02/28/8057bf519dfbf3ec09ff8fbe/kabupaten-nias-barat-dalam-angka-2023.html Nyanardsan (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Still seems iffy to me but what would I know?Would be happy to defer to someone more knowledgable about Indonesian-related topics. But my gut feeling is that the sourcing needs to be more robust. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Kingoflettuce: Statistics Indonesia is the most robust you can get in regencies and cities article and for hospitals information Kemkes database (RS online) is also the most robust you can get with all the accrediations and the number of beds. If you still think it's "iffy" based on your gut-feeling, I request another review by other users because what you did here seems like a rather baseless accusation. Nyanardsan (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- It just doesn't seem acceptable for there to be eighteen citations of the same "source" which is nothing but "Badan Pusat Statistik, Jakarta, 2023, Kabupaten Nias Barat Dalam Angka 2023 (Katalog-BPS 1102001.1225)". Notwithstanding the fact that we'd probably want more than just statistics to demonstrate how "interesting" and noteworthy the hook fact is, I don't think it's baseless or unfair to request something a little more specific and verifiable than what we currently have. Otherwise it does seem like you're forcing the issue... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 23:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Kingoflettuce: Its simply because all of the information are contained within that BPS report and other than statistics, there isnt much more mention of the regency (which is expected, this is some obscure small regency). The report itself has English translation: [2]. You can download and verify it by yourself. This is the first time such a regency article by me is questioned as problematic despite the sources, so apologize if Im being rather defensive here. Nyanardsan (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not going to comment on the other cases but at the bare minimum, you should really be giving the exact page numbers for each claim, rather than duplicating one citation eighteen times. That much should be obvious. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 00:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Anyway, I did take a look and is the fact that a place has 41 "megalithic sites" (which is merely backed up by a table listing "megaliths") inherently noteworthy and do we have mention of this outside of a stats sheet? That's what I meant by "forcing the issue" -- some facts/articles, try as you may, are just not interesting... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 00:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Kingoflettuce: The regency is known for megalith structures so yes I do think its interesting that there are 41 of them. Otherwise if you dont find it interesting, that's fine. Feel free to suggest other hook. I am fine with any hook suggestions or alts as long as this article passed. Nyanardsan (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Anyway, I did take a look and is the fact that a place has 41 "megalithic sites" (which is merely backed up by a table listing "megaliths") inherently noteworthy and do we have mention of this outside of a stats sheet? That's what I meant by "forcing the issue" -- some facts/articles, try as you may, are just not interesting... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 00:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not going to comment on the other cases but at the bare minimum, you should really be giving the exact page numbers for each claim, rather than duplicating one citation eighteen times. That much should be obvious. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 00:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Kingoflettuce: Its simply because all of the information are contained within that BPS report and other than statistics, there isnt much more mention of the regency (which is expected, this is some obscure small regency). The report itself has English translation: [2]. You can download and verify it by yourself. This is the first time such a regency article by me is questioned as problematic despite the sources, so apologize if Im being rather defensive here. Nyanardsan (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- It just doesn't seem acceptable for there to be eighteen citations of the same "source" which is nothing but "Badan Pusat Statistik, Jakarta, 2023, Kabupaten Nias Barat Dalam Angka 2023 (Katalog-BPS 1102001.1225)". Notwithstanding the fact that we'd probably want more than just statistics to demonstrate how "interesting" and noteworthy the hook fact is, I don't think it's baseless or unfair to request something a little more specific and verifiable than what we currently have. Otherwise it does seem like you're forcing the issue... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 23:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Kingoflettuce: Statistics Indonesia is the most robust you can get in regencies and cities article and for hospitals information Kemkes database (RS online) is also the most robust you can get with all the accrediations and the number of beds. If you still think it's "iffy" based on your gut-feeling, I request another review by other users because what you did here seems like a rather baseless accusation. Nyanardsan (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Still seems iffy to me but what would I know?Would be happy to defer to someone more knowledgable about Indonesian-related topics. But my gut feeling is that the sourcing needs to be more robust. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Kingoflettuce: This is the same BPS source. Since the catalog was already cited there I simply use it, but this is the online version which is the same document. [1]https://niasbaratkab.bps.go.id/publication/2023/02/28/8057bf519dfbf3ec09ff8fbe/kabupaten-nias-barat-dalam-angka-2023.html Nyanardsan (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- It basically smells like original research to me. Is there a better source than "Badan Pusat Statistik, Jakarta, 2023, Kabupaten Nias Barat Dalam Angka 2023 (Katalog-BPS 1102001.1225)"? Not to be biased against foreign-language sources, but I don't even have a way of seeing that this source exists! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Kingoflettuce: I apologize but my sources are reliable. May I ask what's exactly the problem with the sourcing? The source you mentioned previously is a database of Indonesia hospitals which I use to cite that the hospital is D-class. Other sources are Indonesian Statistical Reports and Investment Book for North Sumatra Province which explains a lot of West Nias Regency's economy, among other things with statisics (that I use to complement BPS data). I would like to know why they are problematic. Thank you very much. As for the DYKN problem, I noticed it too but from the amont of bytes, its already 5x im pretty sure and this is the problem with the DYKCheck. Nyanardsan (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Now we're getting somewhere. You say "The regency is known for megalith structures": where's the source demonstrating that? All you have is a stat sheet listing the number of structures... Your final line sadly confirms my suspicions though. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 00:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- I apologize, this has been quite an exhausting debate for me. I think I would like to close this nom as fail. I'll just edit another regency that might be "more interesting" Nyanardsan (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)