Template:Did you know nominations/Compagnie des Transports Strasbourgeois

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 Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Compagnie des Transports Strasbourgeois

(

)

... that the Compagnie des Transports Strasbourgeois were the first in France to use low-floor trams?

Created/expanded by SimonTrew (talk), Beth Holmes 1 (talk). Nominated by SimonTrew (talk) at 12:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(New reviewer) Very much improved article - great work! Interesting hook, although not certain that Human Transit classifies as a reliable source; apparently not verified at La CTS : 134 ans d'histoire either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevj (talk • contribs) 15:30, 22 March 2012

I think this is an interesting hook, but I find several issues with the article and the hook.

First off, the requirements for a 5x expansion aren't met -- DYKcheck indicates that the prose length has increased by less than 3x since January, when the translation of the French Wikipedia article was inserted. However, in this case I'm prepared to say that January is still very recent and the addition of numerous images and tables compensates for some prose, so I'll boldly call this a 5x expansion.

My next concern is that the hook fact is not adequately supported. As Trevj noted above, the cited source is a blog. It's a blog by a professional transit consultant, so it deserves some benefit of the doubt in this case. However, all that the source says is that "Strasbourg was the first city to use the low-floor articulated tram design" -- not only does that mean that the word "articulated" would need to be added to the hook for full accuracy, but the absence of contextual details (such as when they were introduced) makes this a particularly weak basis for the claim of "first." Either find a more solid source or draft a different hook.

Finally, footnote number 7 seems to be incorrectly formatted; it needs to be fixed. --Orlady (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: I realized today that the nominator has been offline since 16 March. I just now sent a note to the other creator of the article. --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)