Talk:Kayangan Lake

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Kayangan Lake, located in Coron Island, is regarded as the cleanest lake in Asia?

• Source: [1] [2]

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Oedipus (opera)
• Comment: Gained permission to nom this by DarkNight0917.

Created by DarkNight0917 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 12 past nominations.

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC).

• I will do a full review of this later, but for now my main concern is the hook. The claim of it being the cleanest lake in Asia is an exceptional claim, so per WP:DYKHOOK and WP:EXCEPTIONAL would require exceptional sourcing. Right now the article uses The Straits Times as the source for the fact: it is yellow on WP:RSP, which generally means it is to be used with caution on Wikipedia, and its suitability is a case-by-case thing. In this case, it may not be completely safe for it to be what supports the source. Either more independent or stronger sourcing should be found, or a different hook be proposed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, propose this one: ALT1:... that a tribe performed rituals in a lake to let outsiders use it? Source:TST this hook uses the Straits times, let me know if it's okay or not. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• ALT1 should be okay as the article isn't about the Singaporean government and there's no reason to doubt that the ST is unreliable in this case. The main issue right now is that part of the article appears to be a close paraphrase of the Straits Times article, so that needs urgent attention. The sourcing in the article isn't the best since it seems to rely on tourist guide websites, but for the purpose of the article it probably isn't disqualifying since they aren't used to support contentious information. As for the rest of the DYK checks, the article is new enough and long enough and a QPQ has been provided. In addition for the need to resolve the close paraphrasing, the article could also use a copyedit. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

One final suggestion: as the claim of it being the cleanest lake in Asia is an exceptional claim, and I do not believe that the sources provided are exceptional sources, my suggestion would be to make the statement in the article less definitive. Something like "The Straits Times stated that the lake is reputed..." or wording to that effect. Maybe Launchballer can help out here with the wording and copyediting? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

A possible alternate wording of ALT1, if for whatever reason it does not pass scrutiny, could be something like:

ALT3 ... that prior to allowing outsiders to visit Kayangan Lake, the Tagbanwa tribe performed a ritual to seek permission from nature spirits?

It's much longer than ALT2 and I think ALT2 is still suitable, this is just a backup option. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I will take a look at this when I'm done with Talk:Megan Barton-Hanson/GA1, and I'll get to that when I'm feeling a little more clear-headed. (There's clearly something big there I'm not seeing.)--Launchballer 13:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I am really not liking some of the sources used in this article - Journey Era, Philippinetravels.ph, and Richandsunnytravels.ph are all WP:SPS blogs and Guidetothephilippines.ph is a travel agency. What makes them reliable?--Launchballer 14:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

They're travel websites that give information about the subject. They aren't ideal, but it's often the case that coverage about less well-known Philippine destinations are lacking. As long as they aren't being used to support contentious information, as in what they're saying is uncontroversial and unlikely to be made up, I don't necessarily see them as a problem for DYK purposes. This isn't aiming for FA or even GA. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Having said that, the claim of it being the cleanest lake in Asia is an exceptional claim, and I'm not comfortable with how it is currently presented as a fact in the article. As stated above, my suggestion would be for it to be attributed to the Straits Times, while also making the presentation less definite. If this isn't addressed, I can't see this article running on DYK since that statement will likely be challenged at WT:DYK and/or WP:ERRORS. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@TheNuggeteer: Please address the concerns raised above; the nomination may be marked for closure if they are not resolved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Done, added note. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 13:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, but the attribution to The Straits Times has to be in-text and not a footnote. So the article should say something like "A The Straits Times article called the lake the cleanest in Asia." or something like that, and even, I'm not even sure if the claim would meet scrutiny to other editors. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)