Talk:Ballast Island (Seattle)

Did you know nomination

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 Rjjiii talk 14:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Native Americans in Seattle sought refuge on an artificial island composed of the waste thrown overboard from ships? Source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvcwnvq3 pp. 83-86
  • Reviewed: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Salmon_Report

Moved to mainspace by Generalissima (talk). Self-nominated at 06:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ballast Island (Seattle); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Would be happy to review, but before I do, I think this article has a lot of potential as an April Fools' Day hook... as a reviewer I can't propose alt hooks, but if you have any ideas I'd love to get another hook slotted for April 1.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• April Fool's Day hooks are really fun, but I think this would be too depressing for that, honestly. Generalissima (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The hook is interesting, Earwig checked out, the source is reliable, QPQ is done. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 21:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like this DYKN got all mangled for several reasons; see this screenshot. @MyCatIsAChonk: you placed your review below the <!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> comment. @Lettler: you placed your review on the talk page instead of the nomination page. Thanks, ^Queenof_Hearts 03:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh weird... is it still ok for promotion, or does something need to be fixed? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 08:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ballast Island (Seattle)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Utopes (talk · contribs) 22:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this one, expect a review soon! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Here we go! This article reads high quality so far, so hopefully theses are able to be actioned on reasonably to meet the GA criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   This article is reasonably well written. Any issues with the content have been brought up in other sections, but beyond that this follows all MoS guidelines, with solid prose, spelling, and grammar.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   "It is now overlaid by additional fill reinforced with sheet pile retaining walls." - I suppose "now" can be used here, although it is slightly jarring to only have one citation throughout this paragraph, at the end. When saying that something is "now overlaid", we're putting a guarantee that it "still is" at the time its written, as well as if it remains untouched for another ten years, when things might have changed. Could probably use a citation halfway through this paragraph to combat this aging with sources.

   I've now re-used the reference in question an additional time after the claim, to further emphasize that it is all related to this location. This is more than plenty to confirm verification, so I'll mark as  Done. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

   Beyond that, the citation style is consistent and all challengeable statements have an easily accessible reference to follow, besides the one exception above.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   "Although camping was more tolerated on the island than other areas in the city, the native workers were increasingly viewed as squatters by local press." - this is the only occurrence of something being "tolerable", and doesn't come up later throughout the article. Although the perception of these native workers as "squatters" does get covered later, the idea that camping was more "tolerated" on the island is undiscussed and not an obvious baseline.

   This part does not seem changeable due to the "toleration" being clear from the other camping activities which take place in this section. This was probably my most niche nitpick, and is pretty important to the classification of the workers as squatters by the press, differing the two situations.  Done Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

   "dumping their stabilizing ballast (usually in the form of rock or brick) along the bay before loading cargo." - is it important to mention that the ballast was usually in the form of rock or brick? It's a nice piece of trivia, and perhaps it puts the ballast into context, but it doesn't seem like the addition of a parenthetical here is necessary to progressing the topic.

   I removed the parenthesis, and reorganized this into the rest of the sentence without the claim to "usually in the form". Now, it's replaced with "often", which is sufficient enough to say  Done. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

   Apart from this, the article covers everything that it needs to, without going into unnecessary tangents that detract from the reading experience.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article is written neutrally, is not pushing a certain positive or negative viewpoint about the island, just that it is an island.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   A stable article, not particularly adjusted besides the author.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The four images are all high quality with relevant captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article looks phenomenal! I was really grasping at straws to find anything wrong with it. The citations were perfectly used for all their worth, and was all in all, a good article. Just a couple outstanding issues that need to be addressed. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

   As I was only able to find these issues, with everything else looking good to go and meeting the GA criteria, I'll go ahead and get into addressing these sticking points to see if this can be resolved sooner than later. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

   Oh, thank you very much! Sorry, just now got around to checking this. Generalissima (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

   (edit conflict)@Generalissima: All good all good, if you'd like to weigh in on this please do! In the meantime though, I'm somewhat hoping to make sure everything is soundly addressed within the next half hour, haha... you might understand ^^ Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

   Also, if you're scrambling to stay in the Wikicup, I just nominated a fairly short (and similarly named) article today that should be easy to source-check. Generalissima (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

   Yep! I did see that one. This should be enough now that the baseline threshold increased up to 30 (which I'm at 25), so as long as there are no other problems then I might take a look at the other Ballast Island next week or so. Cheers! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

   Hah, no worries. Best of luck with the cup! Generalissima (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

   That should be everything for this review! I'll be marking this as  Done now, hopefully these changes are sufficient. Nice work, and good luck! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)