Template:Did you know nominations/Embassy of the United Kingdom, Bangkok
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Embassy of the United Kingdom, Bangkok
[edit]
The British Embassy in Bangkok
- ... that the British Government is selling off its embassy in Bangkok (pictured), in what will be Thailand's priciest real estate deal ever? Confirmation of the sale in the Nation source.[1] The "priciest ever" fact is supported by the Post Today source, which is in Thai and behind a paywall.[2]
- Reviewed: Poerbatjaraka
Created by Paul_012 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC).
Article is new and long enough. It meets policy on neutrality and plagiarism, but falls short on sourcing due to several unsourced paragraphs and statements, particularly in the history section. The hook is short, interesting, and cited in-line to a foreign language source (which needs to be marked as such in the reference). QPQ has been completed. Image is properly licensed and is very clear at thumbnail size. SounderBruce 19:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Every paragraph in the History section is already cited to the embassy website. Which statements in particular do you find potentially controversial enough to require further in-line citations? --Paul_012 (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- If a citation covers an entire paragraph of statements, then it should be placed at the end of the paragraph. Otherwise, readers will infer that the statements that aren't followed by an in-line citation are not cited. SounderBruce 22:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Done as requested, though I don't believe that was entirely necessary, as WP:Verifiability explicitly requires inline citations only for material that is likely to be challenged. I realise, though, that the trend at DYK over the past several years has been toward stringency, so I understand where you're coming from. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
