Template:Did you know nominations/Beyond the Sky and Earth
- 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 PanydThe muffin is not subtle 10:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Beyond the Sky and Earth
[edit]- ... that the title of the book Beyond the Sky and Earth is derived from an expression of thankfulness in Bhutanese which means, "I am thankful to you beyond the earth and sky"?
Created by Titodutta (talk), Nvvchar (talk). Nominated by Titodutta (talk) at 09:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC).
The article is sourced almost entirely to the book itself. Even the reviews (reception section) are sourced to the book. While it is OK to use primary sources for supplemental details, the core of the article should be sourced to independent sources. I think the book is notable, but as is the article is inherently non-neutral as is since it doesn't summarize third party opinion about the book. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank for your comments. The primary sources mainly support the plot section. It is okay to use primary source in plot or synopsis section or it may be kept unsourced too. The review and award section don't have any primary sources. --Tito Dutta (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- It is indeed permissible to use primary sources, but it isn't permissible to use near exclusively primary sources. The reception section is indeed sourced to the book itself, presumably because a snippet of review was printed on the back cover to sell books. The only things not sourced to the book and a couple intro sentences and the very brief award section... We can request another reviewer take a look if you like, but I'm not willing to accept it as is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I either forgot it or did not notice it. It seems this page is being cited. --Tito Dutta (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Se page 15 in preview. Tito Dutta (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Appreciate how much focus has been put on improving the article. There are 5 quotations under "Reception", I would ask that our nominators should consider paraphrasing at least 2 or 3 of those quotations. Quoting is usually discouraged when the text is available online. The book links itself to p.15, it should use the main URL because there are many other page numbers that have been used as source. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- @OccultZone:Thanks for the review. Done as suggested. Hope it is Ok now.--Nvvchar. 08:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I would pass.
OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
