Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Sir John Rogerson's Quay"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Yoninah
(restoring tick)
imported>Yoninah
(to Prep 5)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DYKsubpage
+
<noinclude>[[Category:Passed DYK nominations&nbsp;from January 2017]]<div style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
|monthyear=January 2017  
+
:''The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify this page.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|this nomination's talk page]], [[Talk:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|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'''.''
|passed=<!--When closing discussion, enter yes or no -->
+
 
|2=
+
The result was: '''promoted''' by [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 09:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)<br />
 
{{DYK conditions}}
 
{{DYK conditions}}
 
====Sir John Rogerson's Quay====
 
====Sir John Rogerson's Quay====
 
{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Sir John Rogerson's Quay|Sir John Rogerson's Quay}}
 
{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Sir John Rogerson's Quay|Sir John Rogerson's Quay}}
<!--
 
 
                  Please do not edit above this line unless you are a DYK volunteer who is closing the discussion.
 
 
-->
 
 
* ... that '''[[Sir John Rogerson's Quay]]''' was a private development in 18th-century [[Dublin]], and became home to a 19th-century [[diving bell]] used to further develop [[Dublin quays|Dublin's quays]]?  [<small>Hook source: [http://www.independent.ie/life/travel/travel-news/140yearold-diving-bell-to-be-reborn-as-tourist-attraction-30982685.html][http://www.engineersjournal.ie/2015/04/07/dublin-diving-bell-renovation/]</small>]
 
* ... that '''[[Sir John Rogerson's Quay]]''' was a private development in 18th-century [[Dublin]], and became home to a 19th-century [[diving bell]] used to further develop [[Dublin quays|Dublin's quays]]?  [<small>Hook source: [http://www.independent.ie/life/travel/travel-news/140yearold-diving-bell-to-be-reborn-as-tourist-attraction-30982685.html][http://www.engineersjournal.ie/2015/04/07/dublin-diving-bell-renovation/]</small>]
 
:* ''Reviewed'': [[:Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Napuʻuako Boyd|Robert Napuʻuako Boyd]]
 
:* ''Reviewed'': [[:Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Napuʻuako Boyd|Robert Napuʻuako Boyd]]
 
:* ''Comment'': Created in Sep 2008 as a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sir_John_Rogerson%27s_Quay&oldid=238876964 oneliner]. It remained so until [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sir_John_Rogerson%27s_Quay&oldid=761141572 last week]. Expanded about 7x between 27 Jan and 30 Jan 2017.[[User:Guliolopez|Guliolopez]] ([[User talk:Guliolopez|talk]]) 17:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 
:* ''Comment'': Created in Sep 2008 as a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sir_John_Rogerson%27s_Quay&oldid=238876964 oneliner]. It remained so until [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sir_John_Rogerson%27s_Quay&oldid=761141572 last week]. Expanded about 7x between 27 Jan and 30 Jan 2017.[[User:Guliolopez|Guliolopez]] ([[User talk:Guliolopez|talk]]) 17:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 
<small>5x expanded by [[User:Guliolopez|Guliolopez]] ([[User talk:Guliolopez|talk]]). Self-nominated at 17:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC).</small>
 
<small>5x expanded by [[User:Guliolopez|Guliolopez]] ([[User talk:Guliolopez|talk]]). Self-nominated at 17:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC).</small>
<!--
 
* {{DYKmake|Sir John Rogerson's Quay|Guliolopez|subpage=Sir John Rogerson's Quay}}
 
* {{DYKnom|Sir John Rogerson's Quay|Guliolopez}}
 
-->
 
  
 
:* [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] Article has been recently expanded fivefold and is long enough to qualify. No policy issues that I can see. The latter half of the hook is fine, but the first part (18th century private development) is in a separate part of the article and is not referenced in-line; it would be better to remove it all together, as it wouldn't really be missed. QPQ is fine. '''[[User:SounderBruce|<span style="background:#5d9731; color:white; padding:2px;">Sounder</span>]][[User talk:SounderBruce|<span style="background:#1047AB; color:white; padding:2px;">Bruce</span>]]''' 04:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 
:* [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] Article has been recently expanded fivefold and is long enough to qualify. No policy issues that I can see. The latter half of the hook is fine, but the first part (18th century private development) is in a separate part of the article and is not referenced in-line; it would be better to remove it all together, as it wouldn't really be missed. QPQ is fine. '''[[User:SounderBruce|<span style="background:#5d9731; color:white; padding:2px;">Sounder</span>]][[User talk:SounderBruce|<span style="background:#1047AB; color:white; padding:2px;">Bruce</span>]]''' 04:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Line 32: Line 23:
 
:::::*[[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 23:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 
:::::*[[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 23:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 
:::::::*Hi {{u|Yoninah}}. In honesty I am very surprised to read a suggestion of CLOP, and in particular on that sentence. There is a very limited number of ways to state that the quay was built between two walls, with the gap between was filled with material dredged from the river. That statement (to my own read) falls into the category of [[WP:LIMITED]]. I have however reviewed the snippet. And revised slightly. If considered insufficient, then I'm not sure what else to suggest. As any further changes would result in an awkward construct that would not represent natural language use. [[User:Guliolopez|Guliolopez]] ([[User talk:Guliolopez|talk]]) 00:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 
:::::::*Hi {{u|Yoninah}}. In honesty I am very surprised to read a suggestion of CLOP, and in particular on that sentence. There is a very limited number of ways to state that the quay was built between two walls, with the gap between was filled with material dredged from the river. That statement (to my own read) falls into the category of [[WP:LIMITED]]. I have however reviewed the snippet. And revised slightly. If considered insufficient, then I'm not sure what else to suggest. As any further changes would result in an awkward construct that would not represent natural language use. [[User:Guliolopez|Guliolopez]] ([[User talk:Guliolopez|talk]]) 00:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::*[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] {{ping|Guliolopez}} yes, I see what you mean. It looks like it's enough to replace "river" with "Liffey". Restoring tick per SoundBruce's review. [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 09:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
+
::::::::*[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] {{ping|Guliolopez}} yes, I see what you mean. It looks like it's enough to replace "river" with "Liffey". Restoring tick per SoundBruce's review. [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 09:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)</div></noinclude><!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
 

Latest revision as of 09:54, 9 February 2017

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 Yoninah (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sir John Rogerson's Quay

5x expanded by Guliolopez (talk). Self-nominated at 17:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Article has been recently expanded fivefold and is long enough to qualify. No policy issues that I can see. The latter half of the hook is fine, but the first part (18th century private development) is in a separate part of the article and is not referenced in-line; it would be better to remove it all together, as it wouldn't really be missed. QPQ is fine. SounderBruce 04:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks so much for taking the time to review. On the points raised:
  1. '"18th century private development" is not referenced in line' - This is now addressed [3][4]
  2. '"18th century private development" is in a separate part of the article' - I don't really understand whether/what is meant here, or if this is a an issue to be solved. Or an observation. If we can improve something here, just let me know.
  3. '"18th century private development" should be removed' - If we think it's a big problem, then happy to remove it. However, personally, that it was a private development is (IMO) significant. In fact, I had even considered making this the hook. Alone. Referencing de Courcy's quote. The reason I didn't is because I personally don't like DYK hooks that refer to someone's opinion. ("Did you know about X's opinion concerning Y?" seems weak IMO. When compared to "Did you know about fact X concerning Y?"). If you can propose an alternative hook, then please let me know. Though personally I don't see what problem is caused by including the words "private development"...(?)
Thanks again for taking the time and effort. Hopefully addressing the inline ref issue helps. Guliolopez (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Alright, my main issue (the citation) has been addressed. As for the hook itself, I mistakenly thought that the facts in the hook would need to be in the same sentence/paragraph in order to qualify, but a further look at the guidelines says otherwise. Good work. SounderBruce 23:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg There is some close paraphrasing which needs to be rewritten/rephrased in your own words:
  • Source: The land between the walls was filled with sand and gravel dredged from the river
  • Article: The gap between these walls was filled with sand and gravel dredged from the river.
  • Yoninah (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Template:U. In honesty I am very surprised to read a suggestion of CLOP, and in particular on that sentence. There is a very limited number of ways to state that the quay was built between two walls, with the gap between was filled with material dredged from the river. That statement (to my own read) falls into the category of WP:LIMITED. I have however reviewed the snippet. And revised slightly. If considered insufficient, then I'm not sure what else to suggest. As any further changes would result in an awkward construct that would not represent natural language use. Guliolopez (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Template:Ping yes, I see what you mean. It looks like it's enough to replace "river" with "Liffey". Restoring tick per SoundBruce's review. Yoninah (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)