Template:Did you know nominations/Tiruchirappalli Railway Division

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 Allen3 talk 21:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Tiruchirappalli Railway Division[edit]

(
)
  • Reviewed: No review required (not a self-nomination)

Created by Balablitz (talk). Nominated by Vensatry (talk) at 04:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC).

  • [[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] Sourcing appears reliable. Hook has is cited. The article is 1,500+ characters. New enough. Good to go!!! Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I have pulled this from the prep area, as it has a number of unreferenced paragraphs/sections. Harrias talk 12:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • My rule of thumb is about 1 per paragraph? Thanks, Matty.007 12:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Generally, I think that's about right, but I would say that every section, however short should be referenced, and in this, the Towns and places of interest section is completely unreferenced. That coupled with the first, second and third paragraphs lacking references in the Passenger and freight services section is enough for this article to need a little more work in my opinion. Harrias talk 13:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Pings don't work in template space... I've TBed him. Thanks, Matty.007 08:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm ridiculously busy at the moment. Anyone can re-review this, it doesn't have to be me. Harrias talk 08:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about my initial review. I should've checked those issues out beforehand. Nevertheless, it seems like the concerns have been dealt with. Other users here agree as well. Almost every sentenced is now reliably sourced. The hook is cited as well. 1,500+ and new enough. I say this is GTG. If there are any objections, let us hear them now in order to prevent a further mess. Also, I may want to add that Balablitz (talk · contribs) did a wonderful job working on the article. Great teamwork guys! Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The sentence that says "the second largest division of the zone" (the hook fact) is indeed footnoted, but I have trouble finding the fact in the cited refs. What do BG and RKM mean in this ref, please? It might support the hook fact, but I can't be sure just by looking at the table. --PFHLai (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment I've come across this article in checking the reviewer's QPQ for another DYK hook and must say that this is a boring hook. In writing a DYK hook, you should make it interesting--hence why it is a hook--you're supposed to be intrigued by what is said in the hook to want to know more about the article. Hooks need detail to make them interesting. Why I think this is badly written...(1) If the article is called Tiruchirappalli Railway Division but you only link "Tiruchirappalli" most readers are going to be like "what is it...a town?" (2) o.k. it's the second longest...why should I care? (3) Southern Railway Division where? - I know it's India, but nothing in the hook would tell that to a potentially unaware but easily interested reader. Therefore, I'd propose an ALT1.

Consider this. ALT1 is 148 characters and gives a little more context that might interest someone or give the a reason to be interested. Because as far as DYK hooks go, the original proposal is uninteresting and blasé.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

    • I agree with Colonel Henry. I would not use the word "Railway" twice in the hook, though. I don't think ALT1 is too far off the original hook, so we can do without another review just because we have a new hook. One small thing is that the hook and the table in the cited ref both say 1025, but the article says "1,026.55 km (637.87 mi)". So is there a second ref for the bigger number? Which number should be used? The hook and the article must be consistent. Please fix. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Tiruchirappalli_Railway_Division&oldid=1021374488"