Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Dog Island Lighthouse

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Zanhe (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Dog Island Lighthouse, Dog Island, New Zealand, James Balfour (engineer)

edit
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)

Dog Island Lighthouse

  • Comment: Haven't been here in eight months; hope the rules haven't changed too much.

Created by Schwede66 (talk). Self nominated at 07:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

Article is new enough and long enough. Pic is correctly licenced but could do with a small crop IMHO. Edited the hook to bold only one article (assume that is how it should be done). Hook is correctly formatted. Article is well referenced. Hook fact is not stated in the lighthouse article (the one stated to be the subject of the nom). It is stated in the Balfour article. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@Philafrenzy: I think this is a three article nom. Schwede66 will probably have to provide three QPQs (with his 200+ DYK credits). Care to review the other articles? Fuebaey (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind but it won't be quick! Does that mean we need three separate noms and three diff hooks? Philafrenzy (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Nah, there's no limit to the number of nominated articles in a hook, as long as they meet the criteria. The oldest nom on this list (scroll up) is currently a seven article hook and there is another with 37 lying around. Not the most though. Fuebaey (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I was completely unaware of this matter. Where are the rules for this sort of review (assuming there are any)? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Same as if it were a single nom. Only specific criteria would be in regards to the length of the hook (supplementary rule C3). Fuebaey (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Gosh, this got some attention a lot faster than I thought and had hoped for. The Balfour article isn't ready yet (but meets DYK requirements), but this had to be nominated for the oldest of the three articles to not drop off the list. Yes, three articles are nominated, as per the name of the listing. Yes, I will have to do three QPQs. Thanks for your suggestion of cropping the photo; that is done. Question to anybody here - do all the hook facts need to be confirmed in all three articles? I'm asking because Balfour's drowning has nothing to do with Dog Island or its lighthouse, so it would be totally out of place in those articles. I have shown my original hook as Alt1, and I much prefer it to the modified version for two reasons. Firstly, it is somewhat ironic to drown when you are the marine engineer. Secondly, it is even more ironic if you drown while travelling to the funeral of a drowned friend and colleague. The hook as modified has lost all those components and is, in my opinion, too bland. Lastly, may I point out that the lighthouse article turned out pretty good (I reckon it's not far off GA); reviewers may want to consider whether they recommend for the hook to be used as the lead. Schwede66 18:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I think I should leave this to a more experienced reviewer. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have experience with a 30-in-1 nomination in which I insisted that the hook fact appear in all 30 articles. However, I have since seen other editors waive this requirement, especially for multiple hooks such as this, where the facts don't fit into every article. I agree with Schwede's contention that the original hook is the best hook. For the first part of the hook, which contains all the article links – ... that James Balfour, designer of the tallest lighthouse in New Zealand (pictured) on Dog Island – all these hook facts appear and are cited inline in all 3 articles. I am willing to IAR and accept the added fact, drowned while travelling to the funeral of a colleague, as an interesting twist to the hook; this latter fact is cited and verified only in James Balfour. All 3 articles meet requirements of newness, length, neutrality, adequate referencing, and no close paraphrasing seen. Hook facts verified and cited inline. Image is freely licensed.
  • My only reservation to concluding the nomination is the choice of QPQs. QPQ1 is still in progress, and therefore cannot technically be used as a QPQ. There also doesn't seem to be much in the way of a review by this nominator for QPQ2. Very good work and follow-through on QPQ3. Yoninah (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • My understanding has always been that you have to do a review and that counts as a QPQ; there is no such requirement that the review has to result in a final acceptance or decline of a nomination. Or is that something that has been recently added to the rules? Regarding the amount of effort put into the QPQs, I can guarantee you that I have put as much time into QPQ3 as you would normally use to review three nominations! Schwede66 00:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: could you help me here, please? I am trying to understand the guidelines you've mentioned to me on previous nominations. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, back when I was learning the ropes, Orlady explained to me that so long as a complete review was done by the reviewer, it counted as a QPQ even if that review didn't end in a tick and more rounds were required before the nomination was eventually approved or rejected. It wasn't fair to hold the QPQ hostage to the nominator's subsequent actions. The key here is "complete review": all the aspects were covered, not just a single failing. QPQ1 and QPQ3 are certainly fine in this regard. For QPQ2, my reluctance is only because the January 10 review doesn't cover policy issues like neutrality and close paraphrasing—the latter is a concern given that some of the lengthy delay on this nomination was due to a copyvio Premise section that, when deleted, brought the article below 5x expansion and required new material to be added to make up the difference. But perhaps Schwede66 had seen Thine Antique Pen's original review which said there weren't copyvios, but missed the copyvio discovery later in the process. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I did see the copyvio discussion, but it had been removed and that brought the article below the required 5x expansion. That's why I commented on it being, by then, long enough. Schwede66 18:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, now I get it. You are worrying because I didn't specifically comment on copyvio myself. Ah well, I shall have another look at it. Schwede66 18:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Schwede66, for checking. So far as I'm concerned, you've now done everything I could want for QPQ2, and indeed for all three QPQs. Over to you, Yoninah. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, @BlueMoonset: I will remember Orlady's advice on QPQs in future. The nominator has met the QPQ requirement on all 3 articles. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Dog_Island_Lighthouse&oldid=878517143"