Jump to content

Talk:Tourism in Estonia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know 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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by TootsieRollsAddict (talk). Self-nominated at 15:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I'm still not sure if the current hook meets WP:EGG, since it's talking about "vodka tourism" when in fact the article is at Tourism in Estonia. The phrasing could thus probably be adjusted further. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I'll remove all the references to vodka in a second. So, I think I'll add a mention about tourism comprising 20% of all exports in Estonia. TootsieRollsAddict (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While your new proposal works as an alternate hook, I actually liked the vodka hook, so maybe it could be re-proposed with new wording (basically, find a way to not make the hook an easter egg link). Another possible option would be that many of the vodka tourists come from Estonia. Perhaps BuySomeApples or Theleekycauldron can help with the exact phrasing? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so we have an ALT5 suggestion from the nominator. TootsieRollsAddict, what I'll tell you is that while the hook is good, my personal take is that it's a little long-winded. DYK hooks are generally pretty short and to the point, and sometimes they tell only part of the story so that readers are tempted to click on the article and read the full thing. In general, trying to fit an overview of the whole story is less effective than only giving a teaser, and letting the interested readers come to you. I've suggested an ALT5a, just to try and make it a little punchier. Also, what Narutolovehinata5 has been telling you about WP:EGG is that when users click on the bolded link, they shouldn't be surprised to find themselves on "Tourism in Estonia"—if they think they're clicking through to "vodka tourism", that'll be a letdown. Now, WP:EGG can be a clever way to make a hook more interesting (here's an example of a nomination I made that breaks WP:EGG), and if you know how to use it, it can be a boon—but I'm not sure that's quite right for this nomination. Let me know what you think! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I can understand your concerns. I know for a fact that Wikipedia DYK hooks are very small, and that people would be quite disappointed if they saw a page that would not be about be the topic itself. But problem is: vodka tourism itself is not notable for its own Wikipedia article (or at least that is what I think), so I had to use the Tourism in Estonia article instead. Besides, it's quite new compared to a lot fo the other articles on Wikipedia. If you can further improve it, that's a plus. TootsieRollsAddict (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 :) Narutolovehinata5, looks like we're going with ALT5a—do finish the review at your leisure theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Based on the discussion I've struck ALT5 in favor of ALT5a. The full review will follow shortly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is new enough and long enough, and I didn't find any close paraphrasing. Nominator has less than five nominations so no QPQ is required. I had to strike ALT4 as the hook fact isn't mentioned in the article itself. I like ALT5a the best, but I'm not exactly sure about the source use. Is it a journal article? If so, then I think it's fine and the source can be used, I'm just making sure about the nature of the source since I remember in the past where theses were generally discouraged from being used as sources in articles. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the source I was talking about when I said I wasn't sure if it was a journal article or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, I have read these new messages. What's the gist now? Can it become a DYK nomination one day? Just asking; not begging, because I have another DYK nomination up and fresh for anyone to review if they feel like it. TootsieRollsAddict (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this nomination has a good chance of passing, there are just some things that need to be clarified. Pinging theleekycauldron again for their feedback. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping! TootsieRollsAddict, as a general note, the overwhelming majority (by my guesstimate, 95 percent) of DYK nominations will see the main page; usually, the reviewer is willing to work with the nominator to figure out what needs to be done, and the nomination just sits here until the issues are fixed. Willingness of both sides to make timely responses is usually what makes the difference between a nomination process that takes a week or two months.
As for this nomination, my only (albeit large) issue is the sourcing. As a general rule of thumb, there must be one citation for every paragraph (not in the lead) and direct quote. I've inserted a {{citation needed}} everywhere, well, a citation is needed. If it's an end-of-paragraph citation, it should hopefully cover all of the uncited text in the paragraph. Normally, I wouldn't require citations in the lead (in fact, per WP:LEADCITE, they probably shouldn't be there at all), but since there's material in the lead that doesn't re-appear in the article, it needs to be cited also.
Everything else looks fine to me at the moment, although I'll defer to Narutolovehinata5 on that because they're the reviewer. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 13:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think once the referencing issue is fixed my only real remaining concern is the nature of the UMass reference, as I'm still not sure if it's a thesis, a journal article, or a paper made for a presentation. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added all the citations (some of them the same citation inserted into various places). It took me a full day: I am horrible at finding reliable sources. But now, there are no citation needed templates now, and every piece of info is cited. Hopefully that is done for that.TootsieRollsAddict (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5? (in general, it's good to ping your reviewers—we're not the most watchful people) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned before, this is almost good to go, I would just like to get a second opinion on the UMass source. I'm leaning towards it being reliable, this is just to make sure. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was the impression I got as well. Would that be good enough as an academic source? I'm less familiar with their use as article sources when compared to regular journal articles. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I don't see why not? It's a paper in a reputable source theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Yes, it's a good idea. I think it is perfectly fine enough. UMass is a reputable university, so, why not? I am just waiting when it will be put out on the main page (I am not begging for it, don't worry). TootsieRollsAddict (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I got my second opinion so I think ALT5a is good to go now. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ALT5a to T:DYK/P3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tourism_in_Estonia&oldid=1212510460"