Template:Did you know nominations/Sarlacc's Pit cave

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wells Gray Park Cave discovery

  • ... that the largest striped karst cave ever found has been nicknamed Sarlacc's Pit? Source: "The cave is the largest known of its type, a variety of "striped karst," which is marble interspersed with other types of ancient ocean rock, she said." and "The entrance to the cave, nicknamed 'Sarlacc's Pit' by the helicopter crew who discovered it, is seen in an undated handout photo." (both sentences from CBC article)
    • ALT1:... that no one will know until 2020 whether the newly discovered Sarlacc's Pit cave is actually the largest cave in Canada? Source: "The exact depth and size of the cave has not been determined... future exploration of the cave is being considered in consultation with BC Parks, and that a team is likely to be fielded in 2020. (from Canadian Geographic article) and "A newly discovered cave in a remote valley in British Columbia might be the country's largest." (from CBC article)

Created by 70.67.193.176 (talk). Nominated at 17:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg - Thanks for creating this nomination and your work on the article! Looking at it for DYK, there a number of things that have to be done in order for it to be ready to run on the main page. First, there are a few sections that are without any/adequate citations. Also, there are a few tags expressing concerns over the article's tone, general phrasing, among other things that need to be resolved. Please let us know if you have any questions or would like us to take a look at any changes. Thanks again, Mifter Public (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Mifter Public. Thank you for the note. I was surprised to see your comment about unreferenced sections since I had put a reference on each sentence. But then even more surprised to see the article! People have added a TON of stuff to it since I nominated it. I am overwhelmed and not sure what to do or where to start. Some questions for you:
  • The article name was changed, does that make it ineligible for DYK now?
  • Do all the additions now make it ineligible, or is there anything that can be done? I do not want to erase anyone else's work, obviously, and I think it's cool so much has been added. But I have no idea where the other people got their information from. What would you suggest?
  • I think I could fix the tone tag through copyediting. But how would I fix the tag about a contributor with a conflict of interest? Whoever that contributor is, it is not me, and I suppose that tag has to stay there as long as they have contributed content to the article.
  • Thanks very much for your advice. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
    Here's what you need to do; comprehensively and heartlessly remove anything that can't be cited or smacks of POV. It's great that the original investigators are taking an interest, we welcome them here, but if the information has not yet been published in a reliable source then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia (see discussion on article talk page). You can remove the maintenance templates yourself when the issues have been fixed. The article will not get past a DYK review while they are still in place, or the issues have not been fixed. This is not a full review, there is little point doing that while the article has major problems.
    On the name change issue, that may need to be undone, although it probably doesn't affect DYK. Wikipedia article names should be the common name found in sources, regardless of any "official" name. In any case, as I understand it, the feature does not yet have an official name. You need to advise what your sources are calling it and then change the name accordingly (see Wikipedia:Requested moves). SpinningSpark 19:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much Spinningspark. I am seeing first if the other contributor will work with me, if not I will carry on with your advice without them. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I regret the spanner in the works, and I admit to knowing nothing about caves; however, "no one will know until 2020 whether the newly discovered Sarlacc's Pit cave is actually the largest cave in Canada" sounds fishy to me. They/we may not know until 2020 whether this cave is the largest among those known either now in 2019 or at the time (2020), but it's imaginable that come 2028 or whenever, a huge cave will be discovered. Therefore I tentatively suggest the clunky-sounding "no one will know until 2020 whether the newly discovered Sarlacc's Pit cave is actually the largest known cave in Canada". (There are ways to avoid the "know ... known" repetition, e.g. "no one will be sure".) -- Hoary (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This has been stuck for almost a month with no updates: if this cannot move forward soon, this will be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Hello, Blue Moonset alerted me to your message. Update is that I have not heard from the person who wrote the merged article. When is the deadline for me to change the article? Thank you, 70.67.193.176 (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
As this nomination has been open since December and there's been little progress, we'd probably give at most another week to fix the issues. This has gone on for too long already: it's pretty much now or never. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll be back before April 1.70.67.193.176 (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello Template:U,Template:U,Template:U,Template:U. The unsourced material has been removed. The article is no longer tagged. A "requested move" has been put into motion to move the article to the name reflected in the sources (though you said this won't affect DYK). Hope you can now review the article. Thanks, 70.67.193.176 (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Template:U, you pinged me (among others). Regardless of any opinion I might have about this candidate, I'm not going to review it. Reasons: (i) I'm very unfamiliar with the DYK process. (My only contribution above was to point out that the implication in "ALT1" that in 2020 people will know whether X is the largest example of Y is strange, as all they'll know is whether X is the largest known example of Y. My pointing this out doesn't seem to have had any effect. Either I've misunderstood something or "ALT1" remains unsatisfactory.) (ii) I know squat about geology, I'm embarrassed to admit. (iii) I know squat about Canadian and other custodianship of natural resources, landmarks, etc. So for example a note tells the reader "The official name of the cave has not yet been determined as of December 2018"; I'd like to see if I could update that to "April 2019", but I don't know what list(s) of "official names" I might check. ¶ That said, I wish this candidate well; the subject matter certainly sounds like a humongous (and inhospitable) hole, eminently worth the attention of Wikipedia browsers. -- Hoary (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Hoary, I'm not really up on the process either, but I'm sure no one is obligated to review. I mentioned you all as people who had expressed interest, that's all, not meaning to push. My understanding was that when the reviewer chooses a hook they decide between the existing ones which is where your comment will be helpful and they can choose your proposed alternative wording, so of course it is useful feedback. Also thanks for your comment about the "note" - I want to delete it for the reasons you say but have not found where it is so I can do that grrr. I will if I can find it in the code. And thank you for the well wishes. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)