Talk:Ergaki Nature Park

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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Bruxton talk 16:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Ergaki Nature Park

• ... that Ergaki Nature Park (pictured) is known as the "Russian Yosemite"? Source: Some have dubbed Yergaki the 'Russian Yosemite', a description that at least indicates to the outside world the scale of the awe-inspiring views in a national park and National Park also known as the 'Russian Yosemite' in vast Krasnoyarsk region - literally 'at any time'.
  • ALT1: ... that Ergaki Nature Park (pictured) is known for lakes and streams which are thought to be among the cleanest on earth? Source: Its pure mountain steams and lakes are among the least polluted on the planet.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Roosevelt Island Tramway

Created by Bruxton (talk). Self-nominated at 22:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ergaki Nature Park; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

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:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Both hooks verified, although I personally prefer the alt. Gatoclass (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Bruxton, the Siberian Times, which both hooks rely on, along with a considerable part of the article, is not a reliable source. See this discussion at RSN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: I have always used this as a definitive WP guide regarding reliable and unreliable sources. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The source is not listed there and the discussion which you have linked to only involved three editors. Bruxton (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Bruxton, the top of WP:RSP clearly states it is a "non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed"; nearly all of these discussions happen at WP:RSN. Consensus in this particular discussion was not only clear, but well-sourced. Based on this discussion, I am unwilling to promote these hooks; if you feel that this decision is erroneous, you are welcome to bring it up at WT:DYK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the message @AirshipJungleman29:. The discussion you linked to was about what Mashable (which is both yellow and red on Perennial) and Meduza (Which does not look like RS) thought about the Siberian Times. The Mashable link is now a dead link. The park is in Siberia and the information in question is from the Siberian Times and it is not contentious. I am going to put it on my list to rewrite the Siberian Times Wiki because it is not good right now. Also I will wait for another promotor to promote this article about this nature park in Siberia. I am happy to replace Siberian Times as a reference if it gets listed red on perennial or a wider discussion with an actual closure/determination occurs. Bruxton (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary Bruxton, Meduza is one of the most reliable sources for Russian-related topics. Gatoclass, as a reviewer, what are your thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Clearly I didn't take a close enough look at the site when verifying the article, my apologies. I'm a bit rusty at this.

ST doesn't list an editorial team, and it's clearly a tabloid, but Google News turns up a number of articles in reliable sources citing it, including the Washington Post, Smithsonian, Business Insider, Time magazine etc. If sources of this calibre are citing it, one would think it has at least a degree of credibility. The Meduza article states that there are many negative articles in Western tabloids sourced to the ST written by one guy, but the website if anything looks to be leaning promotional of Siberia in its coverage. The lack of a published editorial team is clearly an issue though. One could argue, I guess, that it's marginally citable for noncontroversial content per WP:UBO, but technically it probably wouldn't be considered reliable per WP:SOURCE. Gatoclass (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 and Gatoclass: There are many books which cite The Siberian Times as a source. The Siberian Times (TST) article referred to here was written by a journalist, Kate Baklitskaya. I do not think the article is controversial, sensational, or inaccurate.

There are two citations from the TST article for the park by Kate Baklitskaya:

#Ergaki Nature Park is a protected area

#The Flora section: "park has hundreds of different mosses, liverworts, lichens and fungi...

One sentence was copied over from Hanging Stone citing a different TST article

1. "Also within the park is a natural feature called the Hanging Stone. It is large granite stone which seems to teeter on the cliff face perched high above Lake Raduzhnoyeke"

I went ahead and removed the Hanging Stone TST citation and replace it with Russian language source just to lessen the TST in the article.

It is likely I could replace the 2 TST citations (1 and 2 above) with another Russian Language source but I am not sure it is necessary. I do not think TST is likely to be blacklisted or red or pink. Maybe case-by-case WP:MREL. Bruxton (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

As I said, technically it probably fails WP:SOURCE, but it probably wouldn't bother me a great deal to see it used for noncontroversial content. There is always the possibility however that a marginal source like this would get challenged when it goes to the main page. So if you can find more clearly reliable sources for the relevant info, that would certainly be preferable. Gatoclass (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Kate Baklitskaya is a Ukrainian freelance journalist with no connection to Siberia who has written extensively for British tabloids such as the deprecated Daily Mail. Seeing as the article presents no sources, claims such as "known as the Russian Yosemite" and "cleanest river water on earth" are marginally reliable at best. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright. I did say it was technically unreliable. If I'd noticed the issue originally, I probably would have challenged it myself, as I generally do for any source that fails to list an editorial team. Gatoclass (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 and Gatoclass: It was too late last night and I see that I identified number one and two above incorrectly. In any event I have removed TST as a reference. What we are left with is the official park website, News Laboratory LLC and some government and touristy sources. That the park exists and looks to be a pristine wilderness is what peaked my interest. Many tourist sites refer to this as "Russian Yosemite" but until the BBC or some other trusted source parrots that we are left with thin sources so I withdraw and will close. Bruxton (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)