Template:Did you know nominations/Ballona Creek Bike Path
- 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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Nominator has indicated in their last comment that they will be unable to bring the article to DYK standards.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Ballona Creek Bike Path
Ballona Creek bike path entrance gate
- ... that the Ballona Creek Bike Path was originally only “5/8ths of a mile” (1 km) long? Source: "Bikeway Again OK'd". Los Angeles Times. 1971-08-05. pp. WS3.
- ALT1: ... that the 6.7-mile (10.8 km) Ballona Creek Bike Path is a little more than half the total distance of the larger 13-mile (21 km) Park to Playa Trail? Source: https://trails.lacounty.gov/NewsAndEvents/1160/the-park-to-playa-trail-bridge-is-open
- Reviewed:
5x expanded by Jengod (talk). Self-nominated at 06:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC).
Both of the hooks are more on the meh side of things interestingess wise. The first hook is a bit technical, the second hook is reliant on local geography that may not be well-known outside of locals. I think a hook about the path originally being maintenance roads for waterways could have potential, but the article seems to talk about it in general and does not specify if Ballona is one of them. The article could also use some copyediting, particularly the "Access gates" and "Improvements" sections (which I'm not convinced should be lists). Can you confirm how many nominations you have? QPQ check doesn't give any other nominations by you but your talk page suggests you have been active on DYK in the past. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I also noticed that the article uses Yelp, Reddit, and WordPress as sources. Unless the WordPress page is by a self-published expert, that source may not be reliable per WP:RSP. Similarly, the Reddit and Yelp references may also have to be replaced per similar reasons. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Do I reply here? I used to be an admin and do a lot of Wiki back in the early 2000s. I think I was there when DYK was launched? I vaguely recall being heavily involved with it back then but I don’t know how anything works now. (1) Only other hook I can come up with is “DYK BCBP is marked by an aesthetic of human-dwarfing concrete”? Lol (2) Can I delete the request for this to be included in DYK without offending anyone? Or could you do it for me? It’s not a new article and it seems like the revision still needs lots of work anyway. (FWIW, Wordpress LA Creek Freak is guy is in fact an expert. He writes for a paid gig now on the same topics and wrote Down By the Los Angeles River: Friends of the Los Angeles Rivers Official Guide.) not sure what to do to replace Yelp and Reddit because it’s a fairly niche local topic. I guess I’ll look for more books? jengod (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- At the very least, you can try replacing the Yelp and Reddit links with more reliable sources if you can. If you think you can do it, the nomination can proceed. If you don't think you can do it, you can request that the nomination be withdrawn. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Jengod: Are you still planning to pursue this nomination? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Your comments inspired a lot of good improvements to the article, thanks. I’m going to pass on DYK tho! Too much superfluous work. Thanks just the same. Appreciate your involvement. jengod (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)