Template:Did you know nominations/Ichirizuka
- The following discussion 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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Ichirizuka[edit]
_%E6%9D%B1%E6%B5%B7%E9%81%93%E4%BA%94%E6%8B%BE%E4%B8%89%E6%AC%A1%EF%BC%88%E7%8B%82%E6%AD%8C%E5%85%A5%E6%9D%B1%E6%B5%B7%E9%81%93%EF%BC%89.png)
- ... that ichirizuka (pictured in a woodblock print by Hiroshige) marked the distance to Nihonbashi in Edo?
- Reviewed: Ein ungefärbt Gemüte, BWV 24
Created/expanded by Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk). Self nom at 01:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
QPQ done. Images have acceptable copyright. Hook properly formatted. Article completely supported by inline citations. Article is neutral enough.
this is cited in support of hook fact and I cannot find the text in the source that does it. Please clarify. --LauraHale (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Clarify where hook fact comes from and where sources supporting it found in the article. --LauraHale (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, wondered if this would get flagged; it's corroborated here (as well as in a couple of the other refs), which is the ref for the Edo point at the end of the establishment section; per, er, synecdoche (of the totum pro parte variety), this second mention of "Edo" stands is in this context for "Nihonbashi (in Edo)", as introduced in the lead; can't really overload the lead section with refs as that sentence is an amalgam of points from a number of sources; and can't put Nihonbashi in the later Edo point as that's about Edo as opposed to Kyoto... Perhaps close enough to get away with it? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Suggestion: Write article more summary style so lead doesn't need to be cited. Then overload the body with citations as required. Hook fact needs to be validated. --LauraHale (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Have duplicated the ref, so hopefully now even more compliant, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Suggestion: Write article more summary style so lead doesn't need to be cited. Then overload the body with citations as required. Hook fact needs to be validated. --LauraHale (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, wondered if this would get flagged; it's corroborated here (as well as in a couple of the other refs), which is the ref for the Edo point at the end of the establishment section; per, er, synecdoche (of the totum pro parte variety), this second mention of "Edo" stands is in this context for "Nihonbashi (in Edo)", as introduced in the lead; can't really overload the lead section with refs as that sentence is an amalgam of points from a number of sources; and can't put Nihonbashi in the later Edo point as that's about Edo as opposed to Kyoto... Perhaps close enough to get away with it? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)