Talk:Dona Joaninha
Appearance
(Redirected from Talk:Dona Joaninha (locomotive))
A fact from Dona Joaninha appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 August 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DYK nomination
[edit]- 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 SL93 (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
( )
- ...
that Dona Joaninha (pictured) hauled sugar cane across Brazil since 1940, was sold for scrap, turned into a monument, fell into disrepair, and was restored this year?
- Reviewed:
To comeChurch Row, Hampstead - Comment: There are probably better hooks that could be used - any suggestions?
- Reviewed:
Created by Mike Peel (talk). Self-nominated at 20:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC).
- Not really a comment, but here might be an alt hook:
ALT1: ... that Dona Joaninha (pictured), which had hauled sugar cane across Brazil since 1940, later became scrap and then a monument?ALT2: ... that Dona Joaninha (pictured), which had hauled sugar cane across Brazil since 1940, was turned into a monument after a scrap dealer partnered with the Brazilian city of Guarulhos?epicgenius (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: Thanks for the alt hooks! I think there's a distinction between something being sold to a scrap dealer and it being classified as scrap, but otherwise I like them. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- i'll start a review (Epicgenius can't do it because they suggested new hooks). i like both the new ones, Mike Peel would you like to rephrase as ALT3 (and ALT4 if necessary) so you are happy with them? Mujinga (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing. :-) ALT2 is fine, here's a minimum change to ALT1 to address my point:
- ALT3: ...
that Dona Joaninha (pictured), which had hauled sugar cane across Brazil since 1940, was sold to a scrap dealer and then became a monument?
- ALT3: ...
- Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nice one, I'll do the review now. Mujinga (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing. :-) ALT2 is fine, here's a minimum change to ALT1 to address my point:
- i'll start a review (Epicgenius can't do it because they suggested new hooks). i like both the new ones, Mike Peel would you like to rephrase as ALT3 (and ALT4 if necessary) so you are happy with them? Mujinga (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not really a comment, but here might be an alt hook:
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
- Interesting:
- Other problems:
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: - Not done
Overall: I like both ALT2 and ALT3. ALT2 Guarulhos could be wikilinked. Also, each hook needs to have the claims referenced on the particular sentence in the article, per "Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact". QPQ needs to be done. Mujinga (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel: Please return to the nomination and address the remaining issues so that this can proceed, thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Mujinga and Narutolovehinata5: Sorry, this dropped off my radar. QPQ is now done, linked above. The references are at the end of the text they reference, I can add them at the end of each sentence if needed but that would just be duplication. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel: I agree abut the duplication but it's best practice in case someone else edits the article and the citation gets separated from the info, so please do that. On a re-read of the ALTs Guarulhos should definitely be linked and maybe sugar cane also? Mujinga (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Mujinga: OK, each sentence (except for the lead) now has a reference next to it. Linking sounds fine, so we have:
- ALT2a: ... that Dona Joaninha (pictured), which had hauled sugar cane across Brazil since 1940, was turned into a monument after a scrap dealer partnered with the Brazilian city of Guarulhos? source = A história de Dona Joaninha, a locomotiva de Guarulhos
- ALT3a: ... that Dona Joaninha (pictured), which had hauled sugar cane across Brazil since 1940, was sold to a scrap dealer and then became a monument? source = A história de Dona Joaninha, a locomotiva de Guarulhos
- Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel: Looking good, nice one! Thanks to @Epicgenius: for the help on the hooks. Mujinga (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Mujinga: OK, each sentence (except for the lead) now has a reference next to it. Linking sounds fine, so we have: