Template:Did you know nominations/Architecture of Póvoa de Varzim

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 BlueMoonset (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Architecture of Póvoa de Varzim

(

)

... that the architecture of Póvoa de Varzim in Portugal includes influential Romanesque art (pictured), notable contemporary architecture and fishermen's houses that have been described as "Eskimo burrows"?

Comment: I've been working on this in the last couple of days, Copyediting would be much appreciated

Created/expanded by PedroPVZ (talk). Self nom at 19:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Article created June 14, not nominated until June 20, but I'd give a pass on that. There are unreferenced paragraphs. That needs to be dealt with before I continue with the review. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. Some information was retrieved from the monument's plates and interviews. I'm still working on the article and plan to add the requested sources ASAP. --Pedro (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  - Still a couple of unsourced paragraphs, and large paragraphs with only one citation leave me a little concerned that they too are undersourced. Ping me when you add some more sources and I'll take a closer look. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
    - A paragraph or even an entire section may be from that source alone, that happens if the source is IGESPAR or SIPA which contains a lot of information. Not finished yet... I'm going to edit Baroque now. and I'm not only adding sources, but retrieving more detailed information from them.
    - I see what's your point. When in the article states that the site (Romanesque, Gothic or whatever) is relevant to Portuguese architecture, the source is SIPA/ IGESPAR which is the Portuguese national monuments institute. Not personal opinion or from dubious internet sites or magazines. --Pedro (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
      - Sorry this fell off my radar through the vast space of my watchlist. The "rule of thumb" for DYK, though it seems to be treated as an unavoidable rule, so I won't break that trend, is at least one citation per paragraph. In your case it could be simply reusing the same citation, but just making sure there's at least one in each paragraph. The "Baroque and Rococo" and "Traditionalism and Romanticism" sections have uncited paragraphs (I assume backed up by the citation in the next paragraph). The last paragraph in the "Contemporary" section has no citation. I don't mean to harp on it, but once you add at least one citation to those three paragraphs, I'll give it the checkmark. On another note, are there more items in that hook that should be wikilinked? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
      - Ah yes, Romanesque art has a page. I linked it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What's going on here? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- There are a couple of unsourced paragraphs. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  - Alright. Issues unaddressed, almost 2 weeks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    - I dropped a note on the nominator's talk page. Hopefully (s)he can remedy this before this is given it's final close. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
      - Sorry, I had no time. Today i've time to edit. I'll try to address the pending issues today. I'm an he. :P ---Pedro (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
        The unsourced paragraphs are what's prevented this from getting the DYK check mark; GA quality is another matter that I didn't consider. Fix the DYK problem first (preferably today so this isn't failed) and then worry about making it a GA later. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
      - All paragraphs are now referenced. --Pedro (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
        Great. That was my only remaining concern. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)