Template:Did you know nominations/Pacheco Pass Tunnel
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Pacheco Pass Tunnel[edit]
... that courts twice ruled against California High-Speed Rail's proposed Pacheco Pass Tunnel, saying it had not properly considered an alternate route through the Altamont Pass?
- Source: "Once again, a judge on Thursday ordered the state to scrap its plans to zip high-speed trains from Gilroy to San Jose and up the Peninsula... The same thing has happened before. The cities first sued in August 2008, and a year later Kenny ordered the rail authority to rescind the route and redo some of its planning." [1]
- Reviewed: Stop Child Abuse
Created by Antony-22 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC).
Article is new, about long enough, free from copyvio problems and citations are fine. Hook is short enough and, I think, interesting enough. Editor does not appear to have outstanding credits, and no image is provided. So all seems well to me. Wasechun tashunkaHOWLTRACK 18:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Wasechun tashunka: QPQ is needed. Check the credits, Antony-22 has 80. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernameunique (talk • contribs) 00:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Wasechun tashunka and Usernameunique: QPQ provided. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! Restoring tick. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Wasechun tashunka and Usernameunique: QPQ provided. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- I was looking to promote this nomination, but the article does not state on what grounds the court overturned the approval, as far as I can see. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Antony-22, can you add the grounds for the decisions? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Good catch. Upon looking at the original court documents, it seems a bit more nuanced. I'm proposing the following hooks instead. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that courts twice ruled against California High-Speed Rail's proposed Pacheco Pass Tunnel during lawsuits brought by those favoring an alternate route through the Altamont Pass?
- ALT2: ... that California High-Speed Rail's proposed Pacheco Pass Tunnel is expected to become the longest rail tunnel in North America?
- Antony-22 I like ALT2, but why does the article say that there are two tunnels? Are they two parallel tunnels running the same length? --Usernameunique (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- They're two parallel tunnels, but colloquially they're often referred to in the singular. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Approving ALT2, which checks out with an inline citation. Referring to two parallel tunnels that are part of the same project by one singular name seems reasonable, especially considering colloquial usage. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- They're two parallel tunnels, but colloquially they're often referred to in the singular. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
