Talk:Te lapa

Did you know nomination

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 RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that te lapa, an unexplained light phenomenon underneath or on the surface of the ocean, was used by Polynesians to find islands in the Pacific Ocean? Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261594890_Polynesian_Navigation_and_Te_Lapa-_The_Flashing
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1947 World Snooker Championship

Created by Leitmotiv (talk). Nominated by SL93 (talk) at 23:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC).

• Thanks Leitmotiv for creating this (very) interesting article on a novel topic and thanks SL93 for nominating it!
  • The article is new enough (created on 24 October 2022; nominated on 28 October 2022).
  • The article is long enough (more than 1,500 characters of readable prose).
  • The article seems free of copyvios; Earwig does not pick up issues.
  • The article is sourced and the quality of sources seems good enough. However, at the moment I am missing more sceptical views on the phenomenon in the article. In his scholarly work on the subject Richard Feinberg presented a quite sceptical assessment of it. He concluded: "Although I am not quite ready dismiss te lapa out of hand, it is hard to see how a phenomenon so rare and difficult to find could be a dependable navigational tool, particularly in an emergency situation—precisely when it would be needed." This view would in my mind have to be included in the article to make it neutral, i.e. the phenomenon should not presented in a way that indicates that it clearly exists (see [1])
  • The hook is interesting and short enough. However, it is in my mind not quite neutral as the article by Richard Feinberg casts credible doubt on its existence. Maybe a qualifier could be added (like "an unproven and unexplained phenomenon" and was "supposedly used by Polynesians to find islands").
  • QPQ is done.
  • Overall: @Leitmotiv: and @SL93: I will pass this nomination if you include a paragraph in the article that the phenomenon's existence has not been scientifically established and edit the hook accordingly. Thank you for creating free knowledge! WatkynBassett (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• WatkynBassett I added more to the article. ALT1 ... that te lapa, a scientifically unproven and unexplained light phenomenon underneath or on the surface of the ocean, might have been used by Polynesians to find islands in the Pacific Ocean? SL93 (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
  • • Thanks for the quick reply and work on the article SL93! I did some further work on it and think that it is now sufficiently balanced and neutral. I am (very) open to approve ALT1. Just one quick question: Do we have an issue here with the the hook not been directly stated in the original source, because the slightly more sceptical stance of the current hook is not reflected in it? I think it is no issue because the hook is verified with the first and last page of the other source [2], but I wanted to get your view on it. Thanks for your work! WatkynBassett (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
      • WatkynBassett It's fine to me because it's from a reliable journal. SL93 (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
        • Approving ALT1. Good to go! WatkynBassett (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
          • @WatkynBassett and SL93: Great article, yet I think the hook is a little long now (the shorter, the better!). What do you think of
            • ALT1a ... that te lapa, an unproven and unexplained oceanic light phenomenon, might have been used by Polynesians to find islands in the Pacific Ocean?

It's the same hook with a few words removed, imo, which would make it easier to read. –LordPeterII (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. SL93 (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for chipping in LordPeterII! I like your hook even better, collaboration works! WatkynBassett (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

To make it clear that ALT1a is the approved hook. SL93 (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Awkward Sentence

"The book dispelled the former academic belief that Polynesians colonized the islands haphazardly by drifting and without the lack of navigation aids." (emphasis mine)

I was brought by the DYK hook, btw - very cool. The sentence above reads strange - this may be a failure of my own perception, but the bolded portion appears to be a double negative - 'without' and 'lack', and for context I believe should read more along the lines of:

"...that Polynesians colonized the islands haphazardly by drifting and without navigation(/al) aids."

As a fresh DYK article I did not want to be too bold for this change; likely I am just not comprehending correctly. Ignore me, if so! King keudo (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

King keudo I'm fine with your suggestion and I changed it. SL93 (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)