Template:Did you know nominations/Central Ontario Railway

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 Allen3 ^talk 23:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues

Central Ontario Railway

(

)

... that the Central Ontario Railway was built to service a new iron mine, but reached it only to find the ore was not worth processing?

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self nominated at 15:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC).

Maury Markowitz, please see User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. You have three harv refs that are coming up as red errors because nothing points to them. Please correct. — Maile (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Everything is blue on my screen, is there something I have to do? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been trying to let editors know at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#HarvRefs that I'm checking for these errors. If you add User:Ucucha/HarvErrors to your Javescript page, you'll be able to see the errors. However, what I'm seeing is in Citations 1,2 and 3 say they don't point to anything. I can see in the Bibliography you have those. It's probably that the coding Citations is different than how you coded the targets. Maybe Harvard citation documentation will be of help to you. — Maile (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

OK I see the problem now, and fixed it. But this is definitely not something to bring up as a DYK issue IMHO. This is for the article talk page, at best, but I'd suggest just do it! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The errors still come up. But whatever, since you don't think this is a DYK issue. — Maile (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't know how to fix it then. If you do, please do so. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It has absolutely nothing to do with DYK. SL93 (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Which you already know now, but this is for the benefit of others. SL93 (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination needs a regular, full DYK review. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This meets all DYK criteria - long enough, new enough, reliably referenced, and no close paraphrasing. The hook meets DYK criteria and is referenced in the article. SL93 (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Meets all DYK criteria? It's a fine article, but I see only a single inline source citation for the entire four-paragraph Route section, a far cry from the usual DYK requirement. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- I thought that I noticed reference 9 at the end of it all. Not all of the further information is in that source, but I was told to not look that deeply if there were no prior serious concerns. A far cry from the usual DYK requirement? Sourcing four paragraphs is not a far cry from approval. SL93 (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No response from creator/nominator despite a request for one on his talk page at the end of August, and despite significant editing activity in the interim. Although there have been a number of edits to the article in the latter half of August, the sourcing in the Route section is unchanged and still lacking according to DYK standards. I wish there had been some action taken on this. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)