Template:Did you know nominations/Railways in Canberra

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 BorgQueen talk 05:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Railways in Canberra

(

)

... ~~that the city's architects had grand plans for railways in Canberra?~~

Source: https://the-riotact.com/what-happened-to-walter-burley-griffins-grand-railway-plans-meet-the-man-whos-finding-out/498591

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Apache Christ
ALT1 ... ~~that Canberra's light rail system mimics part of the network proposed by the city's architects, who had grand plans for railways in Canberra?~~

- Source: https://the-riotact.com/what-happened-to-walter-burley-griffins-grand-railway-plans-meet-the-man-whos-finding-out/498591

ALT2 ... that many an Xplorer has traversed the rails in Canberra?

- Source: https://transportnsw.info/regional/regional-train-coach-facilities/xplorer-regional-trains

Created by Willthorpe (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

Will Thorpe (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC).

@Willthorpe: Please supply a QPQ, or this nomination may be closed as unsuccessful. Z1720 (talk) 04:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Z1720: Done. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 07:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing... Flibirigit (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Willthorpe: I would like to review this nomination for you. I have placed a few citation needed tags in the article where I am unsure on the source of some statements. Please have a look and clarify. Will continue the review tomorrow. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

General eligibility:

New enough:
Long enough: - ?

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing: - ?
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - ?
Interesting: - ?

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article was created on July 25, and nominated less than a week later on August 1. Overall length is adequate, although the "Present" and "Light Rail" section are rather short. These could be expanded a bit, so that this article does not look like a work in progress. There is one citation needed tag to resolve in the "Regional" section. The article is neutral in tone, and no plagiarism was detected. I have several concerns about the hook. The hook uses WP:PEACOCK terms such as "venerated" and "grand". A more neutral hook is needed, perhaps something more specific about the plans. Also, the hook appears to be sourced to one large paragraph with three citations all at the end. As per WP:DYKCRIT, the citation must come immediately after the sentence which supports the hook, not at the end of the paragraph. All images used in this article have a public license domain on the Commons. QPQ requirement is complete. Overall, it is an interesting article but needs work to adhere to DYK criteria. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: Thank you for your assessment. The light rail section is short because it is covered mainly in a seperate article. The 'Present' section is short because, other than light rail, there is not much today to talk about. I have removed the content that was in need of a citation. I have amended the hook and put forth an alternative hook as well which is more specific. I have amended the reference placement in the paragraph. I hope you or someone else can renew your assessment in light of these changes. Kind regards, Will Thorpe (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Will review the changes by tomorrow. Flibirigit (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate it mate. Thanks for the work you've done. Will Thorpe (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I expanded the light rail section slightly. since it was really too short even though there's not a lot to say. Will continue the review tonight. By the time I post, it will likely be Monday afternoon/evening in Australia. Flibirigit (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I have struck ALT0 as per my original review. It contains subjective terms such as "venerated" and "grand" that are not explicitly cited to reliable sources, and are likely to be challenged at WP:ERRORS. I have struck ALT1 for similar reasons. It uses subjective wording "had grand plans" that are not explicity cited in the article. The "Present" and "Light Rail" section have been expanded enought that this article does not look like a work in progress. Continuing to review this today. Flibirigit (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

ALT2 is a promising hook, but I don't see where it is cited in the article. Also, the only wikilink to Xplorer appears in a photo caption, and not in the main body. Please clarify Flibirigit (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Flibirigit It is sourced and hyperlinked in the first sentence under ‘Present’. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I need more sleep. Flibirigit (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

ALT2 approved. It is interesting, somewhat quirky, properly cited in the article and verified by the cited sources. Previous concerns regarding length and sourcing have been resolved. The nomination is ready for DYK. Flibirigit (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)