Template:Did you know nominations/Devil's Tower Road

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Devil's Tower Road[edit]

(
)

Created/expanded by ACP2011 (talk). Self nom at 02:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options, Gibraltar-related articles are temporarily being reviewed by two individuals. In addition to the regular DYK criteria, at least one reviewer should also indicate whether they perceive any conflict of interest or promotional concerns about the article under review.IP addresses and Victuallers are not allowed to do the reviews.
  • Review 1:
  • Length and date are fine. Article is well-written and usefully illustrated. Sources look OK too; spot checks show no obvious copyvios. No conceivable COI or promotional aspects. Prioryman (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your review. Anne (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Review 2:
  • Sorry. I hate to be the party-pooper here, but I am. Sure, the article is long enough, and there is no neutrality issue here. But there is, in my opinion, a big problem with the article itself. The most substantial and best-sourced part of it deals with the tower--for the rest, the road as a road has only generated coverage because of the redesign; it's the equivalent of BLP1, in a way, and sources do not substantially discuss the existence, history, meaning, etc. of the road. Note also that all the newspaper articles and websites that cover this issue is very, very local, and consider that Google Books, for example, offers nothing substantial on this road. In my opinion, this is a candidate for AfD (or merge into Devil's Tower) more than for DYK. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Probably the best way to move forward with this one is to put the article up for AFD in order to test Drmies' notability concerns; if it survives it can be re-reviewed here. Gatoclass (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I asked BlueMoonset for input on this; their advice was, "If there isn't an AfD or a merge under consideration, there isn't a DYK rule that stops it cold pending resolution." Given that Drmies hasn't done anything about their notability concerns, I suggest moving ahead with the article. Prioryman (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I have put the article up for AFD in order to settle the question before continuing with the review. Gatoclass (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The result was no consensus, with "no prejudice towards the opening of a merge discussion". I'm not sure where we do from here, but even if the Gibraltar two-review restriction ends, I think this would still need the current review to be settled in some way. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • New review needed. Since the submitted image has been deleted from Commons, I've removed "(pictured)" from the hook, and added a missing hyphen. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Prioryman, "Given that Drmies hasn't done anything about their notability concerns, I suggest moving ahead with the article"--what? This was a DYK review; I have no editorial, technical, or moral obligation to "do" anything with my notability concern. I turned it down for DYK, that's all there is to it. While we're on the topic, yes, this would need another review of course--and as far as I'm concerned it needs two reviewers, given Prioryman's involvement in the Gibraltarpedia project (most recently on display here, and while I don't necessarily disagree with Prioryman's proposal, I do agree with at least the tenor of Binksternet's response). The article as it stands is just not a very good article, though it survived AfD: a large chunk of it is a list of "notable" buildings, half of which are redlinks, and the largest part of it is about that proposed highway, including significant (and probably overplayed) minutiae on a possible renaming and on the contract for the construction--none of that is of great encyclopedic value. I hear stuff like "it doesn't have to be a decent article for DYK since that isn't in the rules", and I disagree with that--this article is one of those that I wouldn't want in the shop window. But that's, of course, nothing but an opinion. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I was simply commenting on the fact that that you'd expressed concerns over notability without taking it any further than an expression of concern. As I said above, I asked BlueMoonset for advice and they quite rightly said that absent an AfD, there was nothing in the DYK rules that prevented the article moving forward. The principle is simple: if an article is non-notable it should be sent to AfD. If it's at AfD, a pending DYK nomination should be suspended, as this one was. If it survives AfD, it has to be presumed notable and the review must continue forward on that basis. Another editor duly started an AfD (which I didn't participate in), it resulted in no consensus and so here we are again. I don't think a DYK reviewer is entitled by himself to declare an article non-notable, especially if that article has survived AfD. Individual editors don't have authority to overrule an AfD outcome. So as far as I understand the DYK rules, the notability issue is off the agenda.
  • By the way, regarding the two reviewer requirement, the restrictions specifically state that "Gibraltar-related DYK nominations require two reviews by two separate reviewers (One of the two reviewers should not be connected to GibraltarPediA)." That condition has been met. Only one other review is now required, not two. Prioryman (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You misunderstand me, or you misread me. A DYK reviewer has a right to say "no", and my "no" is not an override of an AfD discussion (which was hardly a resounding "keep"--it was "no consensus"). I've explained my reasons for not wanting this on the front page, as I explained my reasons for wanting two new reviews. You choose to stick to some rules without addressing any of my concerns (which does not surprise me). The first rule is about DYK eligibility, and your view is that if something does not fail the guidelines it should be OK. I disagree: I think an article should be decent, at the very least, before it gets on the front page. The second is that Gibraltarpedia, where your argument basically is that you're not Victuallers. Mine is that the spirit of the guideline is that we should make sure that no DYK articles have a COI smell to them, and my contention is that you are very involved with that project. Rather than repeat the rules that we all know very well, you could try to argue that you are in fact a neutral editor, and I don't think that you can. In other words, in both cases you probably have the letter of the law on your side, and cannot make a decent argument that you have the spirit and intent on your side as well. DYK articles should advertise good, new articles, and DYK as a whole should be able to be seen as free from conflicts of interest. An article that is simply not decent shouldn't be on the front page, and an involved editor shouldn't OK the review. But I've spent too much time on this already and will leave it to the other DYK volunteers to make the call. Drmies (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Merely being a member of a WikiProject does not generate a COI, as you know perfectly well, and you are wrong that I am "very involved" with Gibraltarpedia; I'm not involved at all in its management, nor in the recent article competition. My involvement with Gibraltar is as the founder of a completely separate and much older WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar. You're a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages; does this mean that you recuse yourself from any review of an DYK nomination about the Middle Ages? Your concerns are, frankly, not my business - I'm just a reviewer here, I'm not the author or the nominator. We are both agreed that the article is well sourced and neutral. The only outstanding issue is notability. That has been addressed outside of DYK and since there is no agreement that the article is non-notable we have to assume that it meets the criteria. Prioryman (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Review 3:
  • The article was moved to mainspace at 18:34 on October 10th and nominated here at 02:27 on October 15th, so it meets the time criteria. The article is certainly long enough, so i'm not going to even bother running a specific character amount check. The article appears to be treating the subject neutrally, with the various events in its history being discussed and even the possibly negative events, such as the cancelling of the tunnel project, appears to be worded fine. The recent events over the past year in its history will require the subject to be kept up with, but that's neither here nor there for this nomination. The sources are all properly formatted and, while there could possibly be some reliability issues with one or two of the sources (Google Maps?), there are backup sources for the information, so there's no issue and can be discussed on the talk page. There doesn't appear to be any copyvios that I can see from doing some spotchecks. The hook appears to be fine, proper length and all, interesting enough, and directly referenced in the article. A review was done with the nomination and all the images appear to be free ones. So, all good, I think. SilverserenC 11:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I suppose I should also comment on the notability discussion above. The article was properly nominated at AfD due to the concerns and it closed with the article not being deleted (even if a No Consensus close seems rather questionable with four Keeps and no Deletes). So, there doesn't seem to be a legitimate notability concern now, as the proper process was followed and concluded. SilverserenC 11:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Review4:
  • Drmies is essentially right. The article is 90% filler, with little substance. One of the requirements for DYK appearance is that the hook should be interesting. It follows from that that another minimum requirement should be that article should have some substance.Volunteer Marek 08:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • What are you defining as "substance"? All the information in the article is about the road, its history, the changes made to it over the years, and the controversies related to those changes. That is all substance. If another hook needs to be presented, that's easily done. SilverserenC 08:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This was already addressed by Drmies: The article as it stands is just not a very good article, though it survived AfD: a large chunk of it is a list of "notable" buildings, half of which are redlinks, and the largest part of it is about that proposed highway, including significant (and probably overplayed) minutiae on a possible renaming and on the contract for the construction. I concur with that opinion and would like to add that the whole article reads like a press release.Volunteer Marek 08:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
This kind of statement really takes some chutzpah. For YOU to accuse ME of non-neutrality, when you review Gibraltar related articles yourself, including this one, is really about as hypocritical as one can get.
I'm gonna assume that anyone who reads this is aware of Prioryman's involvement in Gibraltarpedia, the whole push to fill up DYK with as many Gibraltar related articles as possible (to the point where even Jimmy said that he should cut it out) and his aggressive argumentative battleground approach in regard to the issue over at DYK discussion. But if any clarification is needed , then note that even Drmies has been getting tired of this attitude [1].
And yet, he was the first one to jump in and review this article. Sorry Prioryman, if there's non neutrality and Conflict of Interest, here, you might want to start by looking in a mirror.Volunteer Marek 16:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
It's because of editors like you that Anne left the project. SilverserenC 19:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I had a more appropriate response to this comment but I self reverted it to preclude anyone getting their panties in a bunch. But basically, this type of unfounded, insulting, mean spirited accusation is a good characterization of what is wrong with one side of the discussion. Yours. Sorry to be the one to point it out to you seren, but it's you who's acting the bully here.Volunteer Marek 20:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

<-- Notwithstanding the low quality of the discussion above, , I'm satisfied with the article and the hook proposed below, ALT3.Volunteer Marek 14:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I consider myself more or less neutral on the Gibraltarpedia project as a whole. As I've mentioned on the talk page, I just want us to get these done with... while following due process. I've given an extensive copyedit which trimmed a lot (most?) of the bloat (which guarantees I'll be unable to pass final approval). The first paragraph of the Recent history section has a tag which needs addressing (I couldn't copyedit that), and there's a merge tag on the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
As for the buildings: a list is viable, especially for an urban road. The text is not counted for DYK size — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The clarification tag can probably be easily dealt with by Prioryman. And the merge discussion currently has five straight opposes (for the good point that the road has little to do with the Tower besides name commonality). So that should hopefully be closed or withdrawn soon. Once that and the tag is dealt with, it should be good to go, right? SilverserenC 18:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The clarification tag was put in by me; the particular part of the sentence didn't make sense to anyone who didn't either read the source or live in Gibraltar. Now that I've read the source, I see what it means (or at least, I see that it can be made to make sense) - I'll fix it in a minute if it hasn't been fixed already. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I guess it's a bit clearer... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It requires a bit of local knowledge, I think. When the article refers to "the loop road" it's referring to this thing, which is a real pain if you're driving, by the way. Prioryman (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
There are a couple of alternative hook suggestions on WT:DYK which I thought I'd copy here for comment.
The latter might be a possibility for April Fools' Day... Prioryman (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I've boldly fixed the name of the bishop in ALT2. There are two other possible issues with it. First, is it (or something with the same meaning) actually stated in the article and cited at the end of the statement? The silent protest thing was about the government's ideas, not the socialist party's ideas, as far as I can tell. Second, given the fellow's fairly recent death and his publicly described pious worries about the old name of the road, do we really want to be putting on the main page a witty mention that the move to honour him was rejected in favour of his spiritual opponent? Seems a bit harsh for the main page, when we can assume a few friends or relatives will notice it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Fair point - let's change it instead to something like the following, which I think meets both your concerns Prioryman (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Devil%27s_Tower_Road&oldid=1189657004"