A fact from Fundadores de São Paulo appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 October 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that one of the plaques of the Fundadores de São Paulo monument (pictured) was stolen in 2004, and cannot be replaced due to incomplete records?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion
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) 06:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
... that the Fundadores de São Paulo monument (pictured) was inaugurated on 25 January 1963, the anniversary date of the city's founding? Source: [1] (not currently available, but archived)
ALT1:... that one of the plaques of the Fundadores de São Paulo monument (pictured) was stolen in 2004, and cannot be replaced due to incomplete records? Source: a replacement plaque on the monument, see File:At São Paulo 2018 046.jpg.
Comment: Based on a translation from the Portuguese wiki.
Created by Mike Peel (talk). Self-nominated at 21:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC).Reply
Article is new enough and long enough. What makes sources #1 and #3 a WP:RS? Number #2 does not mention Villa Mariana and #3 does not mention the locations. The paragraph about the construction is a bit too similar to the source for my liking. #4 should be reformatted; as the citation is written it seems like it's citing a Wikimedia Commons URL rather than the plaque. The infobox data are unsourced. If the article is a translation from ptWikipedia it needs attribution. ALT1 seems more interesting, both are supported by the article. QPQ still needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the review! #1 was monumentos.art.br, a big database of repositories that is sadly no longer online - I think this is easily a reliable source though, even archived. #3 is more arguable, but I'd think of it like a local newspaper - the situation with reporting is different in Brazil compared to what you might find in the the US or Europe. #4 I've reformatted - this was actually the one I thought a reviewer would object to most. ;-) Happy to reformat it more if needed. It was #1 for Villa Mariana and #2 for the rest - now clarified. Construction paragraph has been rewritten. Infobox data normally seems to be unsourced here (it sadly seems normal - I personally prefer including references in them.) All info in it is mentioned and referenced in the article text anyway. I've also added the appropriate references to the Wikidata item, in case you preferred the automatic infobox (most of it was already referenced there though. I'm not sure how to provide attribution to ptwiki - any pointers? About half of it is newly written anyway (compare the pt version to the en version). I'll do the QPQ shortly. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
QPQ is now done. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
I would probably dump the infobox completely if it can't be sourced. Regarding #3, does that mean it's the equivalent of a newspaper? That is, editorial team, journalists and all? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I can put inline refs in the infobox if you'd prefer? Everything in it is sourced, it's just that the refs are in the article body, and not duplicated there (same as for the intro). #3 - I was meaning in terms of information circulation, not editorial team/journalists - but I'm not sure that even local newspapers in the UK have those nowadays anyway... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
As far as I know, UK newspapers very much have a reputation for unreliability so I wouldn't use them as an example of a reliable source. If the infobox data can be sourced from the other sources, adding references would indeed be OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
OK, I've added references to the infobox. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
That only leaves the reliability question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've already given my answer to that: I think it's reliable. I don't have a better reference to replace it with if you disagree, and removing it would dramatically shorten the article, so perhaps this nomination will fail based on that. :-( Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
I almost forgot; if this article is a translation, does it need attribution? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Ah yes, I found out how to do this: now done. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Article is new enough and long enough. What makes sources #1 and #3 a WP:RS? Number #2 does not mention Villa Mariana and #3 does not mention the locations. The paragraph about the construction is a bit too similar to the source for my liking. #4 should be reformatted; as the citation is written it seems like it's citing a Wikimedia Commons URL rather than the plaque. The infobox data are unsourced. If the article is a translation from ptWikipedia it needs attribution. ALT1 seems more interesting, both are supported by the article. QPQ still needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)