Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Hasegawa Tohaku - Pine Trees (Shōrin-zu byōbu) - left hand screen.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 05:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Hasegawa Tohaku - Pine Trees (Shōrin-zu byōbu) - right hand screen.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 05:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re [1] - I can't spot what information was incorrect (and nothing significant should have changed), can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you checked the information before you imported it from Wikidata, you would have noticed that at least one important thing changed to an incorrect value. It is quite hard to work out what it is from that diff, of course. Theramin (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked through the information when I made the edit, of course. The only significant change I can spot is the coordinates, which were altered as the ones on Wikidata match the ones that UNESCO use. Are you saying that UNESCO have the wrong coordinates, or is there another issue that I'm not seeing? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There also seems to be a 0.8ha error on the area covered (it should be 26.8ha according to [2]), but that seems to be wrong in the article as it currently stands... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the area, but please look at a map rather than trusting coordinates from whatever source. One set of coordinates is (a) in a river and (b) not even in Kasubi. Theramin (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looking at the map, it does look like UNESCO have got the coordinates wrong. :-/ I'm pinging @John Cummings, who is the Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO, to let him know about this, perhaps UNESCO can have a look and fix their record. I'll update Wikidata with the enwp coordinates and deprecate the UNESCO ones. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should be checking any other coordinates copied from UNESCO. Theramin (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you OK? It's always worrying when someone blanks their user page! (And articles can't write themselves - the Wikidata-driven artwork template is just meant to help with the process!) Mike Peel (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theramin and Mike Peel, thanks for pinging me, could you explain why you think its wrong and where you think it should be instead? I can check with them. Thanks again --John Cummings (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: Specifically, this record should have coordinates N0 19 45 E32 33 12 (or similar) as that matches the location of the tombs in OSM and Google Maps. The current coordinates are significantly different from that location. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]