Template:Did you know nominations/Obonga-Ottertooth Provincial Park

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 17:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Obonga-Ottertooth Provincial Park

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that one of the canoe routes through Obonga-Ottertooth Provincial Park is difficult but rewarding for its "unusual and spectacular scenery"? Source: Ref #3 (Obonga-Ottertooth Provincial Park Management Statement)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Crosby-Schøyen Codex MS 193

Created by P199 (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 36 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC). General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

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: --evrik ^(talk) 17:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• @P199 and Evrik: I don't feel that comfortable with including a promotional quote from the park's manager on the main page. What else is there? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• AirshipJungleman29, is that an absolute policy or a preference? Would reworking the sentence be enough?--evrik ^(talk) 17:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @AirshipJungleman29 and Evrik: would you accept this alternative (I still use the quote, albeit a different portion, and no longer use the POV terms):
    • ALT1: that one of the canoe routes through Obonga-Ottertooth Provincial Park is difficult but rewarding for its "scenery of rapids, waterfalls, talus boulders and steep canyons"?
  • -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    • @P199: slightly better, but as it is a non-WP:INDEPENDENT source, I don't think saying "is difficult but rewarding" in Wiki-voice is appropriate. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• What if we change the sentence to this, "The canoe route through the Ottertooth Creek canyon [has been described as] especially difficult and seldom travelled, but rewarding for its "unusual and spectacular scenery of rapids, waterfalls, talus boulders and steep canyons."? There are few independent sources. --evrik ^(talk) 15:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • If there are few independent sources, it might be worth considering whether the article meets the WP:GEOFEAT criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• This park is notable. I also think the hook is fine as written with the current sourcing. I'm struggling to find a solution that makes you happy. --evrik ^(talk) 17:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
• Agree with Evrik. There are tons of sources, just not scholarly/academic ones (obviously, I don't want to use blogs and travel accounts). But an official government-issued work (i.e. Reference #3) should be more than acceptable. Furthermore note that this is not a marketing brochure or some other promotional material. So, if they say that the route "presents the canoeist with severe travel obstacles and minimal campsites" and "one is rewarded with unusual and spectacular scenery...", then that is rather factual and authoritative. It should not cause such trepidation... -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• @AirshipJungleman29: The more I think about it, your hesitation to use ALT1 (or original hook for that matter) is unwarranted. The source is not a trivial travel blog or promo piece, but an authoritative government document, which clearly is a WP:RS. Therefore ALT1 should be more than acceptable. If you still don't think so, we should seek a 4th opinion. FWIW, DYK regularly has POV quotes in the hook. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • No worries, perhaps this is just me being overly cautious. In any case, DYK has a few active promoters aside from me, so I'm sure we'll get another opinion sooner rather than later. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I too would question the dueness of the park's manager singing its praises.--Launchballer 21:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Launchballer, this is a reputable government source describing an aspect of the park. @P199: It may be easier to just write a new hook. I'd offer one, but then I can't approve it.--evrik ^(talk) 22:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Evrik: two new suggestions:

• ALT2: that the Obonga-Ottertooth Provincial Park provides a recreational link between Brightsand River Provincial Park, Kopka River Provincial Park, and the Lake Nipigon basin? Source: Ref #2
• ALT3: that the Obonga-Ottertooth Provincial Park provides remote wilderness canoeing opportunities? Source: Ref #3

-- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm happy if Launchballer is happy. --evrik ^(talk) 15:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the fact that I'm English, but I've never heard of any of the places listed, and my gut reaction to ALT2 is 'and?'. ALT3 still feels a bit advertisingy.--Launchballer 10:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

That is a real stretch! There is nothing promotional about ALT3! In fact, it is so bland, it's boring. What's more, a hook needs to be somewhat promotional anyway to draw people to the article... -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It also needs an end-of-sentence citation. For me, the only thing remotely interesting in this is:

• ALT4: ... that Ontario's Obonga-Ottertooth Provincial Park is a significant habitat for woodland moose?

although that is for very large values of 'remotely'.--Launchballer 23:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• I approve Alt4. --evrik ^(talk) 01:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)