Template:Did you know nominations/Peel Marina

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 08:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Peel Marina

(
)

5x expanded by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 23:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC).

  • The hook is a bit vague and will probably need to be expanded with additional context. Like an explanation about what makes this marina important or what kind of toxic materials are there and how they got there. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @The C of E:, I made an edit in the article (feel free to revert me), because something seemed missing from the narrative: "After concerns were raised by residents over the resulting spillage, a public meeting was called by German Parish Commissioners hoping to engender a viable solution." — Maile (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I disagree in this particular case: there's nothing in the hook that would make readers care about why it is important that this particular marina, out of all the marinas in the world, has toxic chemicals. Something else needs to be said to get people's attention. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
The use of the word toxic is certainly going to grab peoples attention and make them want to click, which of course is the main aim of hooks. It is simple, honest and straightforward. Less is more. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I doubt in this particular case, the hook is just too vague as it is to gain attention, even if does have the word "toxic" in it. If the Peel Marina had been the only marina in the world that had toxic materials, then perhaps the hook as it is could have worked. But as it stands, harbors and marinas having toxic materials isn't even uncommon, and nothing in the original hook gives any hint as to what makes Peel Marina's case different. Less is not always more, context matters. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Case in point; "... The Track was dusty", ran as vague as that and made it to the stats page. This proposal is simply following that precedence. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
DYK isn't a popularity contest. Page views are a nice bonus, but that isn't what people should be aiming for. Rather, it is being featured at all. With that said, I really doubt that ALT0 will be approved at this point (whether by me or by another editor), because it lacks context to catch attention (i.e. the "interesting to a broad audience" criterion). As for The Track nomination, that was in 2012 (eight years ago), and standards and consensus have changed a lot since then. From what I can tell, the review given for it wasn't even a complete review, only a two-word comment that said "meets criteria". If that happened today, the review would very likely be brought up at WT:DYK, the com would be prevented from being promoted, or could even be pulled from prep in the event that it was promoted. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi The C of E, Narutolovehinata5 asked me for my input, so I'll suggest something else. Would something like these work?
  • ALT1 ... that when silt was removed from Peel Marina in 2015, local residents complained that it was "potentially hazardous waste", only for toxic cadmium to be found there five years later?
  • ALT2 ... that local residents complained about "potentially hazardous waste" being dredged from Manx Peel Marina in 2015, only for toxic cadmium to be found there five years later?
epicgenius (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • We're going to need a full review here as well as a decision on what hook to use; I am abstaining from reviewing this due to me asking for Epicgenius's help here and also because it would be good to have a third party to take a look. Courtesy ping to Maile66 as they had taken an earlier look at the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Review by Maile
QPQ
  • QPQ provided and not used on any other nomination
Eligibility
  • Article created by Cearbhalld on June 9, 2008
  • 5X expanded by The C of E on March 3, 2020
  • 1869 characters (331 words) "readable prose size"
Sourcing
  • Every paragraph is sourced
Hook
  • All hooks are sourced, and say pretty much the same thing
  • ALT2 says it best, so striking the other two hooks
Images
  • No image used in nomination
Copyvio check
  • Earwig tool is down
  • Labs dup detector run on every source, and shows no areas of concern
  • Visual spot check of the article seems to be OK.

All hooks say the same thing, but ALT2 expresses it best. I struck the other two hooks. — Maile (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Hi, I came by to promote this, but tagged the lead for not adequately summarizing the key points of the article. Yoninah (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Very nice, thank you. Restoring tick per Maile's review. Yoninah (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Peel_Marina&oldid=958587806"