Template:Did you know nominations/Kapitan Laut Buisan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Miyagawa (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Kapitan Laut Buisan[edit]

Created/expanded by Arius1998 (talk). Self nom at 13:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

  • The sentence of the hook must have a footnote immediately after. The first reference is a dead link (it shows a "this domain is for sale" page). References should not be given as raw links ({{Cite web}} can be useful to fix this). It would be better if the article had a lead and at least one section (a generic "biography" can be acceptable). Cambalachero (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Creator appears to have made a series of edits to the article on July 13, though there was no notification of them here, as should have been done. Can we please have a review to see where the article stands now? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I was watchlisting this nomination, not the article itself. It has improved, but it is still missing a reference for the information in the hook. I checked both links and none seem to mention it. Cambalachero (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Let's try for a different hook entirely. I believe this one is supported by the article and online sources:
BTW, is the article name ideal? Sources[1][2] indicate to me that "Kapitan laut" may be a title or rank (words apparently borrowed from Dutch), not part of this person's name. --Orlady (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The article meets DYK requirements (just). Bare URLs won't stop the DYK approval process. I have struck out the original hook, as it is not directly referenced. ALT1, however, is ok. Duplication detector doesn't show up any problems with the two sources that are online. Schwede66 05:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Erm, no. Bare URLs need to be fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Not to worry, Crisco. There are no bare URLs in this article. I'm not sure what Schwede66 was referring to. --Orlady (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC) I inserted an "approved AGF" link to reflect Schwede66's review. --Orlady (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)