Template:Did you know nominations/William C. O'Neill Bike Path
- 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 Gatoclass (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
William C. O'Neill Bike Path
edit
William C. O'Neill Bike Path
... that William C. O'Neill Bike Path follows an abandoned railroad from Kingston station, West Kingston to Narragansett, Rhode Island?
Created/expanded by JJBers (talk). Self-nominated at 17:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC).
Article is long enough and new enough, hook is referenced, no evident copyvios. Image appears to be correctly licenced. This is the user's first article, so they are exempt from the QPQ requirement. Smurrayinchester 11:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)- I am striking this. My review was clearly insufficient. I am very sorry. Smurrayinchester 07:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- "once formerly" is redundant, please remove one of the two words. --Khajidha (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oops, thank you for picking that up. I've been bold and kept "formerly" - if the OP would prefer "once", that would be OK too. Smurrayinchester 13:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The hook isn't sufficiently accurate: while the path "largely" runs along the former railroad line, it doesn't do so entirely: for example, there's one section that's on a regular street. The article doesn't have any sourcing for the first History paragraph, and must per WP:DYKSG#D2. Also, the description of the three sections completed to date give their lengths as 4.2 miles, 2.9 miles, and 0.8 miles long respectively. (Two of these are both called Phase II, which is confusing.) Adding those together yields 7.9 miles, yet the trail's total length at present is given as 6.8 miles. That difference is way more than can be explained by rounding errors, and the sources don't seem to agree on the actual length, so perhaps some more sourcing is needed. Here's a suggested alternate hook that covers the same basic ground as the original, and comes in at 199 characters, just under the limit of 200:
*ALT1: ... that the William C. O'Neill Bike Path mostly runs on the right of way of a defunct Rhode Island railroad from Kingston station in West Kingston to Narragansett, but also runs on a residential street?- The conflating of the bike path's two names (William C. O'Neill and South County) in the opening bold name of the article requires a secondary source to support its use (or a change so it is not used), and I think the article needs to explain the two names for the path if it's going to use them. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've sourced the first paragraph. OP will have to do the rest. Sorry. Smurrayinchester 07:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Alright, the alt sounds fine for a hook, and also thanks for fixing my errors. The page as been largely edited by me, and I don't have as much experience.--JJBers (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- JJBers, I'm glad ALT1 works for you. I've done a bit more cleanup on the article, but it's up to you to dig into the available sources (and, if necessary, search out others) and figure out what's causing the discrepancy in the trail distance versus its individual phase distances and revise accordingly, and also to fix the two Phase IIs issue. Please let us know when that has been accomplished. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, I'm currently on vacation in New York, and I'm doing this on a friends laptop I'm borrowing, so I work on sourcing when I get home, but thanks for cleaning up the page!--JJBers (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hope you're having a great vacation, JJBers. We'll look forward to seeing you again after your return home. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think ALT1 is too long, especially for such a minor topic. I would suggest dropping the phrase about the residential street. Gatoclass (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Gatoclass, but then you have a hook about a bike path running on an abandoned railroad right of way, which is true of the bulk of the bike paths I know of. Perhaps the specific towns could be eliminated to shorten it, and then you have a bike path running (in part) on regular city streets (instead of just crossing them), which adds a bit of interest. Is ALT2 any better?
*ALT2: ... that the William C. O'Neill Bike Path mostly runs on the right of way of a defunct Rhode Island railroad, but also runs on a residential street?—BlueMoonset (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)- I'm really not keen on any of these hooks, because as you note, there is nothing at all unusual about bike paths running on old rail lines or residential streets. Maybe a different hook can be found. Gatoclass (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- No comments on the article itself, but I'd like to propose a new hook.
*ALT3 ... that the William C. O'Neill Bike Path crosses Rhode Island Route 108 three times?- (this is my first hook proposal) Pppery (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- That is also a yawn IMO. Admittedly, this is not a topic that lends itself to great hooks.
- I did consider proposing a hook based on the statement that it was originally conceived as a children's bike route, but was unable to confirm it from the source. Perhaps if JJBers could source that more accurately, we could use that angle. Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Gatoclass, why exactly is my alt hook not interesting. How about
* ALT4 ... that William C. O'Neill Bike Path crosses Rhode Island Route 108 three times, two of which are only 0.2 miles (0.32 km) apart.- Pppery (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Pppery, a good hook generally highlights either an interesting/informative fact, or an unusual one, and I don't think the fact that a bike path happens to cross a road three times can fairly be described as either.
- Here's a possibility though: the Rhode Island department of transportation describes the path as the fourth longest in the state.[1] Gatoclass (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Before taking this nomination any further, I think the discrepancies in length need to be cleaned up. Main body text and the accompanying sources state that the path is about 7.8 miles in length, but the table says 6.8. The table cites a map for the lengths given therein, but I can't see any distances at all cited on the map. JJBers, where did you get the distances in the table from? Gatoclass (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Google Maps--JJBers (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I have added the requisite fact to the article so I will now propose the new alt:
ALT5: ... that with a length of 7.8 miles (13 km), the William C. O'Neill Bike Path is the fourth longest bike path in the state of Rhode Island? Gatoclass (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Can we have somebody review ALT5 please? Gatoclass (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Article new enough, long enough, and neutrally written. Article is appropriately cited inline, and there are no copyvios that I can find. Image seems to be fine. Hook is not the most enthralling (fourth longest in a state this small) but it will do, I think. One minor issue: the article switches between 6.8 miles and 7.8 miles for the length of the trail. I think 7.8 is a typo, but I'd rather one of you folks checked and corrected this. An inaccuracy in the sentence the hook is from does not look too good. Vanamonde (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry Vanamonde93, I forgot to update those numbers. I think you'll find all the referrals to length now give it as 7.8 miles - the official Rhode Island Dept of Transporation figure.[2] Gatoclass (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, uh, problem with that. The RIDOT website is completely wrong; the actual train is currently 6.8 miles long. (The site claims 108 to Rodman is 2.9 miles - it's actually 1.9 miles long.) I just wrote to RIDOT so hopefully it will be fixed, but in the meantime the RIDOT site should not be considered a reliable source. Rails to Trails gives 6.8 miles in their sidebar, but the pre-2011 lenght of 6.1 miles in the text. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Since rails to trails gives two different lengths, it can hardly be considered a reliable source. RIDOT is a government department that has obviously been involved in the planning and probably construction of this path, if they don't know how long the path is, who does? Gatoclass (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, in this case it appears that they're wrong. If you use the measure tool on Google Maps, or look at our KML map of the path, the path is clearly 6.8 and not 7.8 miles. 'Verifiability not truth' is certainly policy, but it does not support having demonstrably incorrect information. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Since rails to trails gives two different lengths, it can hardly be considered a reliable source. RIDOT is a government department that has obviously been involved in the planning and probably construction of this path, if they don't know how long the path is, who does? Gatoclass (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, uh, problem with that. The RIDOT website is completely wrong; the actual train is currently 6.8 miles long. (The site claims 108 to Rodman is 2.9 miles - it's actually 1.9 miles long.) I just wrote to RIDOT so hopefully it will be fixed, but in the meantime the RIDOT site should not be considered a reliable source. Rails to Trails gives 6.8 miles in their sidebar, but the pre-2011 lenght of 6.1 miles in the text. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry Vanamonde93, I forgot to update those numbers. I think you'll find all the referrals to length now give it as 7.8 miles - the official Rhode Island Dept of Transporation figure.[2] Gatoclass (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- ALT6: ... that the William C. O'Neill Bike Path follows a route first proposed for use as a school children's rail line? Gatoclass (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Gatoclass: given the spate of hook-pullings we have had, I am going to be nitpicky and suggest you stick with the "rail line connecting schools" wording rather than paraphrasing it to be about the children. Personally, though, I do think this fact is more interesting than the previous one. Vanamonde (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93, the source uses the expression "public school rail train"[3]. The proposal was not merely for a "rail line connecting schools" but for a rail line specifically for the use of school children, so I think my characterization is accurate. Gatoclass (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- You're quite right. I was misled by the language in the article, which could be tweaked a little to bring it in line with the hook and the source. Vanamonde (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. I agree the article needs the appropriate tweak, and also needs the appropriate cite, but I'm not going to have time to do it right now so it will have to wait until I log back on again. Gatoclass (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- You're quite right. I was misled by the language in the article, which could be tweaked a little to bring it in line with the hook and the source. Vanamonde (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93, the source uses the expression "public school rail train"[3]. The proposal was not merely for a "rail line connecting schools" but for a rail line specifically for the use of school children, so I think my characterization is accurate. Gatoclass (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
