Template:Did you know nominations/Calayan, Cagayan

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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Article withdrawn by nominator.

Calayan, Cagayan

(

)

... that on the northern coast (coast with crashed ship pictured) of the Calayan, war ship Datu Kalantiaw, hit by the Typhoon Clara, ran aground on 21 September 1981, and only 49 bodies were recovered?

Reviewed: First of the two in this Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Endean, John Endean

5x expanded by Nvvchar (talk),Rosiestep (talk). Nominated by Nvvchar (talk) at 14:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC).

The reference section says that this article incorporates text from a public domain source; per DYK rules, this text must be subtracted from the overall character count. The source isn't available online, so can you tell us how much of the article is made up of original content? DoctorKubla (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Public domain reference (of 1906) was mentioned in the article when we started expanding it. We could not locate it. However the entire text now incorporated is from other references mentioned specifically in the article.--Nvvchar. 16:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Article meets all DYK criteria, as does the hook (to which I've made some trivial copyedits). No copyvio problems. QPQ done. Image is public domain, but not easy to make out, so I'd recommend not including it. Other than that, good to go. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I pulled this out of the prep area due to concerns raised on WT:DYK. --Orlady (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The following is copied from the talk page (by Orlady):

The hook "... that on the northern coast of the Calayan, war ship Datu Kalantiaw, hit by the Typhoon Clara, ran aground on 21 September 1981, and only 49 bodies were recovered?" strikes me as odd for several reasons. 1. Typo: "war ship" -> warship. 2. Isn't there a "the" missing before "war ship"? 3. The Datu Kalantiaw link doesn't lead to a ship at all, rather to a mythological character. 4. The whole hook sort of doesn't flow all that well, I feel. The hook seems effected adversely by a desire to place the bold hook early on in the hook. Plus, there are oddities in the article itself, like that the Americans "... imprisoned the Japanese prisoners and moved them to camps in Luzon." Manxruler (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Also, what's "the Calayan"? Manxruler (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I have made changes in the article. The revised hook ALT1 proposed is ...that on the northern coast (coast with crashed ship pictured) the warship Datu Kalantiaw, hit by the Typhoon Clara, ran aground on 21 September 1981, in the Calayan and only 49 bodies of crew members out of 97 were recovered?--Nvvchar. 17:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

ALT1 hook is 225 characters (you get an 11 character credit for "(pictured)" but no more), so it's well over the maximum length. It's also still a very tortuous and involved hook that fails to give any clue as to what "the Calayan" might be; even if someone does know (unlikely), there's still no hint between city, island, or island group. The hook also implies that 49 of 97 dead bodies were recovered; in fact, 79 of 97 of the crew perished, so 49 of the 79 who died were recovered (and presumably 30 were not). I suggest you simplify the hook and get rid of at least two clauses. I've struck both hooks so far as ineligible. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

And, might I add, the Datu Kalantiaw link still doesn't lead to a ship. Further, calling "a 3rd class (in terms of economic condition) municipality", "the Catalan", is a bit peculiar. Manxruler (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There are also issues with the article. Taking a look only at the History section: 1. "American Forces, who came by the USS Princeton, occupied the island." Which Princeton did the American forces arrive on? There are six. 2. Re the Japanese occupation: "This resulted in disturbance to the quality of life for the islanders, as many of the development works implemented by the Americans were destroyed." - The source only says "According to some Calayanos, the Japanese soldiers practically despoiled the islands of the improvements achieved during the American regime." 3. "This trend, however, changed in early 1944 when the American Forces reoccupied the islands as part of war of liberation and the Japanese prisoners were moved to concentration camps in Luzon." - The Philippines weren't liberated in early 1944, and the source doesn't say that Calayan was liberated any earlier either. The source says: "However, the American Forces easily subdued the Japanese garrison during the early liberation period in 1944 and brought the Japanese prisoners to concentration camps in Luzon." That is, early on during the liberation of the Philippines, not early in 1944. 4. Ship names should be in italics. Manxruler (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Addressed above concerns. I suggest ALT2 Hook ...that on the northern coast (pictured) of the Calayan the warship Datu Kalantiaw hit by the Typhoon Clara ran aground on 21 September 1981, and only 49 bodies were recovered?--Nvvchar. 00:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Well. 1. It's the right Princeton now, but the italics are wrong. The prefix is not to be italicized. 2. The article now gives the impression that all the islanders expressed the quoted opinion, and that's not what the source says. 3. Now that sentence has been brought very close to the wording of the source, except without the year 1944. The year should be included and the information written in your own words, not the source's. 4. Speaking about ship links, Mount Hood doesn't lead to a ship, the correct link is Mount Hood. Please check your links. 5. The Datu Kalantiaw links in the hook and the article are still incorrect. Here is the correct link: Datu Kalantiaw. I'd like to repeat that I've only looked at the history section. Manxruler (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Done as suggested. Any suggestions for further improvements are most welcome.--Nvvchar. 15:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Points 2 and 3 haven't been fixed yet. The year 1944 is misplaced, it goes with the liberation, not with the feeling of some of the locals. The wording is close to the source. Will look into the other sections soon. Manxruler (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

With Rosiestep's editing, it should be all right now.--Nvvchar. 13:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's see. 1. What makes trailbehind.com a reliable source? Does trailbehind.com even cover the information it's meant to reference? It doesn't look that way. 2. I don't see that the cited source supports "...this change of administrative control resulted in isolation of the islanders as transport communications were lacking." The source appears to say that the isolation was caused by a lack of transport, not that the lack of transport was caused by a change of administrative control. 3. The source doesn't say that a "...a mobile government was organized" in 1981, rather that a "big Mobile Government in Action Caravan" was organised. Not the same thing. It seems that some type of mission was carried out. 4. The Americans didn't "...introduced adult education programmes.", the trained adults as teachers, in order for the adults to eventually take over as teachers. 5. The statement that the Americans "...seized the Japanese garrison" seems incorrect. The defeated the garrison, and took prisoners. The text now implies that all or most of the Japanese very captured, which the source doesn't support. 6. The bit about Datu Kalantiaw, and indeed the hook, is problematic. The nominated article says all hands were lost, while article about the ship says that there were 18 survivors. Which is correct? 7. The statement that "...an airport to operate small aircraft is also under construction." is not supported by the cited source. The cited source speaks of plans and hopes, not actual construction. 8. Is tides4fishing.com a reliable source? And where does the "...navigation of other commercial and transport vessels" bit come from? Does "Calayan Island" publish the data, or does tides4fishing.com publish them? Manxruler (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
As I have not been able to find alternate authentic sources to the above cited two references, I withdraw this article from this nomination.--Nvvchar. 15:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)