Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Quehanna Wild Area

Quehanna Wild Area[edit]

This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath. To do this, see the instructions at {{TFAR nom/doc}}.

The result was: not scheduled by Bencherlite ^Talk 14:51, 22 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Quehanna Wild Area in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania was established in 1955 as a habitat for the rare nuclear jet engine. Quehanna was also home to endangered radioactive species like Cobalt-60 and Strontium-90, and was the only wild area in the state with its own nuclear reactor, hot cells, and industrial complex. The 48,000-acre (19,000 ha) wild area is Pennsylvania's largest; its great size allows visitors to track migrating tornados. The land was acquired by the state in the early 20th century as a preserve for tree stumps and ashes. Wapiti became locally extinct in the 19th century and were successfully reintroduced by the commonwealth in the 1920s. In the 1940s beaver dams in the area were dynamited in an attempt to prevent stream acidification from acid rain. Toxic and radioactive waste has been buried in the wild area and dumped in its streams. White-tailed deer, black bear, and robots (pictured) have helped remove some of this waste.(Full article...)

"Straight" blurb:

Quehanna Wild Area in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania was established on state forest land in 1955 as a facility to develop nuclear-powered jet engines. Quehanna had a nuclear reactor and hot cells with radioactive Cobalt-60 and Strontium-90, and is still home to an industrial complex. The land was acquired by the state in the early 20th century after it had been clear-cut and burnt. Its beaver dams were dynamited in the 1940s to try to prevent stream acidification from acid rain. A 1985 tornado destroyed thousands of trees in the area, and defoliating insects have damaged and killed many others. Toxic and radioactive waste was buried in the wild area and dumped in its streams. Although white-tailed deer and black bear dug up some waste, since the radioactive industry closed in 2002 the area has since been mostly cleaned up, in part by a robot (pictured). Quehanna is the first and largest of Pennsylvania's wild areas at 48,186 acres (195 km²). Today it has extensive second-growth forest, successfully reintroduced wildlife including elk and fisher, the 75-mile (121 km) Quehanna Trail System, and the largest stand of white birch in the eastern United States.(Full article...)

There are quite a few dead links, mostly to Pennsylvania state government web sites, but I could clean it up in plenty of time. The blurb could also be written "straight", as most of it just seems unbelievable. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full and total Support—this is my preferred article to run this year. We have a tradition of spinning things a bit without lying, and this fits the bill wonderfully. Imzadi 1979 → 18:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT - As I said on the talk page, I love this article for 1 April. Until this popped up as an option, I was for Disco Demolition Night, but Ruhrfisch hit this one out of the park.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As written, the blurb contains outright falsehoods. Ruhrfisch noted that it "could also be written 'straight'," but I don't regard the subject as humorous. —David Levy 09:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks David, I have tried hard to bend but not break the truth. Could you please say what you find to be outright falsehoods and I will fix them. I do not claim the topic is humorous (I find most of it tragic, and have omitted the human tragedies from the blurb), but it is high on the "That can't possibly be true" scale. I will try to write an alternate "straight" blurb today. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I regard the following as falsehoods: "established in 1955 as a habitat for the rare nuclear jet engine", "home to endangered radioactive species", "allows visitors to track migrating tornados", "as a preserve for tree stumps and ashes".
    In the past, we've rejected proposed April Fools' Day articles because we didn't want to make light (or be perceived as making light) of their subjects. As Dweller noted below, that's what seems to be occurring in this instance. The current blurb contains a jarring combination of purposely silly wording and normal statements regarding a terrible situation. A "straight" blurb would be preferable, but I don't believe that it would be an appropriate choice for April Fools' Day. Yes, we're going for a "This can't possibly true!" reaction, but not in relation to subjects that people would want to be fictitious because they're tragic and depressing otherwise. The realization that the blurb is truthful is supposed to delight readers, not sadden them. —David Levy 17:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for your reply. I have supplied a "straight" blurb. My thought is that the April Fools TFA should draw the reader in, as they think "this can't be true, it has to be a hoax". I think the longer they read the actual article until they realize it is true, the better. Since Quehanna is less well known that the Disco Demolition, I think it might be a better choice for this reason. I do not think there is a requirement that the April Fools TFA be silly or good natured, and I have not included the human tragedies (deaths of two workers doing clean up or the juvenile boot camp) in any blurb. The tornado did not kill anyone at Quehanna and is prominently mentioned in histories of the wild area, so I included it here. Given the remarkable resilience of nature and the cleanup of most of the watse, I think this is ultimately a more uplifting story than the first blurb made it appear (but then the whole planet will likely be consumed when the sun eventually goes red giant). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - My thought is that the April Fools TFA should draw the reader in, as they think "this can't be true, it has to be a hoax".
        Yes, that's what the community has long agreed upon. And neither your "straight" blurb nor the actual article seems outlandish to me. Your original blurb does, but that's because it contains made-up claims. Conversely, Disco Demolition Night requires no embellishment to seem strange enough to be a fabrication.
        Since Quehanna is less well known that the Disco Demolition, I think it might be a better choice for this reason.
        I suppose that Disco Demolition Night is marginally better known, but not to an extant that seems worth considering (based on Google hits). Both topics are sufficiently obscure.
        I do not think there is a requirement that the April Fools TFA be silly or good natured,
        I'm not aware of an official rule, but it's always been an objective. As I mentioned, proposed articles have been rejected specifically because the community regarded their subject matter as too weighty.
        and I have not included the human tragedies (deaths of two workers doing clean up or the juvenile boot camp) in any blurb.
        But they're in the article (as they should be).
        The tornado did not kill anyone at Quehanna and is prominently mentioned in histories of the wild area, so I included it here.
        But a tornado outbreak in which 88 people in the US and Canada were killed is mentioned in the article.
        Given the remarkable resilience of nature and the cleanup of most of the watse, I think this is ultimately a more uplifting story than the first blurb made it appear
        I would support running the article as TFA on Earth Day (April 22) or World Environment Day (June 5). —David Levy 02:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I think we will have to agree to disagree if I used misleading words or falsehoods - I do not think they are any worse than some of those in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2011 or a few other April 1 TFA's. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        The "fanny scratching" incident was a debacle cooked up by editors who exploited Raul's unfamiliarity with what "fanny" means in some English varieties. Numerous editors opined that Wikipedia went too far with that one, and other years' April 1 TFA blurbs have been highly questionable (and widely criticised) as well. The use of purposely ambiguous/misleading wording always is controversial, even when it doesn't contain outright falsehoods. This year, we have an opportunity to avoid it. —David Levy 02:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support—I think of the suggestions this is best April Fool's as it is the most apparently wacky and silly. I think Only Fools deserves a better TFA than the silliness suggested, and I think Disco Demolition should run on the anniversary of when it happened. The Kaiser is kind of dull in my opinion. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is about a wildlife area polluted with radioactive/toxic waste. It also addresses a tornado outbreak in which 88 people in the US and Canada were killed. I don't regard this information as "wacky and silly" or believe that it's appropriate to dress it up as such for April Fools' Day ("endangered radioactive species", "allows visitors to track migrating tornados", etc.).
Oppose Just don't get this as being in any way an April Fools story. The spoofy write-up is making light of radiation pollution, which is horrific and to me unfunny. --Dweller (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]