Template:Did you know nominations/Dubliany, Rivne Oblast
- 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 Bruxton talk 15:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Dubliany, Rivne Oblast
St. Nicholas Church in Dubliany
- ... that according to local legend, the St. Nicholas Church in Dubliany, Rivne Oblast, was built there by accident following a clerical error? Source: By the time the people of Dubno had alerted the imperial government to this mistake, construction of the St. Nicholas Church was already underway and therefore the church was completed in Dubliany. [1]
- Reviewed: [[]]
Created by Akakievich (talk). Self-nominated at 16:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Dubliany, Rivne Oblast; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Article is new enough and long enough. QPQ exemption applies. Reference #2 is broken. Also checked Ukrainian sources with DeepL and they seem to add up, except for with a main entrance consisting of three archways of decreasing size. The interior of the church features painted icons
and keep in mind I don't know about their reliability. Didn't notice any copyvio or plagiarism. Hook is interesting and cited in article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)- Thanks for your feedback. Fixed ref №2, replaced with a better source for the same paper (to avoid hitting archive.org too much). Good spot r.e. the unsupported content – I did indeed miss a citation. I have added it, although I couldn't find any source which supports the description of the church in text; the features mentioned are plain to see from the photos in the (new) source provided. I've never encountered an issue like this before – I don't think what I've written constitutes original research, since I am making the most basic possible inferences from photos provided. But if anyone wants to weigh in, please do, would appreciate opinions. Am open to rewriting that sentence based only on what is stated outright in the available sources. Akakievich (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I think it's sufficiently non-interpretative to pass muster. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. Fixed ref №2, replaced with a better source for the same paper (to avoid hitting archive.org too much). Good spot r.e. the unsupported content – I did indeed miss a citation. I have added it, although I couldn't find any source which supports the description of the church in text; the features mentioned are plain to see from the photos in the (new) source provided. I've never encountered an issue like this before – I don't think what I've written constitutes original research, since I am making the most basic possible inferences from photos provided. But if anyone wants to weigh in, please do, would appreciate opinions. Am open to rewriting that sentence based only on what is stated outright in the available sources. Akakievich (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
