Template:Did you know nominations/Farm to Market Road 24
- 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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Laura; the nominator should have read the criteria carefully before submitting.
Farm to Market Road 24
[edit]- ... that Texas Farm to Market Road 24 was originally designated near Temple, Texas, but in 1951, was redesignated to a different road, located in Corpus Christi, Texas?
Created/expanded by Awardgive (talk). Self nom at 23:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
if I can suggest:
- ALT1: ... that Farm to Market Road 24 in Texas was originally designated near Temple, but in 1951, was redesignated on another road in Corpus Christi?
that would remove less useful links and correct a spelling error and a grammatical error. The state doesn't need to be linked if two cities are linked. Second, the specific road should have its full name in the bold link, rather than also attempt to link to a general article about the type of highway. (The value is in the link to FM 24; there isn't as much value in the link to "Farm to Market Road", which is also linked rom the first sentence of the subject article.) Imzadi 1979 → 23:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Article does not meet length requirements. "Prose size (text only): 908 characters (152 words) "readable prose size"" It needs to be 1,500. The size is just too short.
Newness at time it was nominated. No image copyright issues. Fully supported by inline citations. Both Alt1 and original hook properly formatted. Article is neutral enough.
Article only has two sources. This is a bit concerning. --LauraHale (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Too short and not enough sources. --LauraHale (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Where is there are requirement for number of sources for a DYK? I don't see any requirement for the number of sources in an article for a DYK... just that the specific factoid from the hook have a reference. Rejecting on the basis of size would have been sufficient, but please don't add "requirements" that don't exist in the rules to our new editors. Imzadi 1979 → 05:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- The article is 908 characters of prose. It needs to be 1,500 characters of prose. This is the major issue and it is absolutely a fail based on that criteria. Beyond that, guidelines suggest multiple sources be used. See guideline D12. Beyond that, D13 says: "The subjective decision might depend on an attempt to circumvent the details of the rules, especially if the attempt does not address the underlying purpose of improving the hook and article." So yes, being short by over a third and citing only two sources are fair requirements. --LauraHale (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't disputing the length, but I just don't think you can read that supplemental guideline as requiring a hard minimum number of citations. If you had only rejected the nomination on length alone, I wouldn't have commented. Either way, I mooted that point by adding four more footnotes into the article for the nominator. Imzadi 1979 → 10:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure most reviewers here who regularly review would have some hesitancy in passing a DYK that ONLY had two citations, especially when one of the two citations was to Google Maps. I don't think that is unreasonable to flag a DYK for. I've seen articles tagged as needing improved referencing when they have only had one or two citations. This seems perfectly reasonable to me and fitting within policy. (Especially as one to three source articles at DYK tend to send off alarm bells for potential plagiarism discussions.) I flagged another article for having only four references that were not from the entity was about. These sources are important to have not just for avoiding plagiarism problems and being the best of the new articles but for establishing notability. (Because looking at the article, if I wasn't aware that roads had all sorts of rules about notability and assuming good faith that this passes the guidelines, I'd look at two sources only, one to Google Maps and question whether it would pass WP:GNG, which is why more sources are asked for.) If you feel comfortable with the really short length and sourcing issues, you are free to over ride my review and pass it yourself. And on that cheerful note, I will now pass this review along to some one else to complete. --LauraHale (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Article now has seven sources and over 1500 characters.
- Article now has seven sources and over 1500 characters.
- I'm pretty sure most reviewers here who regularly review would have some hesitancy in passing a DYK that ONLY had two citations, especially when one of the two citations was to Google Maps. I don't think that is unreasonable to flag a DYK for. I've seen articles tagged as needing improved referencing when they have only had one or two citations. This seems perfectly reasonable to me and fitting within policy. (Especially as one to three source articles at DYK tend to send off alarm bells for potential plagiarism discussions.) I flagged another article for having only four references that were not from the entity was about. These sources are important to have not just for avoiding plagiarism problems and being the best of the new articles but for establishing notability. (Because looking at the article, if I wasn't aware that roads had all sorts of rules about notability and assuming good faith that this passes the guidelines, I'd look at two sources only, one to Google Maps and question whether it would pass WP:GNG, which is why more sources are asked for.) If you feel comfortable with the really short length and sourcing issues, you are free to over ride my review and pass it yourself. And on that cheerful note, I will now pass this review along to some one else to complete. --LauraHale (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't disputing the length, but I just don't think you can read that supplemental guideline as requiring a hard minimum number of citations. If you had only rejected the nomination on length alone, I wouldn't have commented. Either way, I mooted that point by adding four more footnotes into the article for the nominator. Imzadi 1979 → 10:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- The article is 908 characters of prose. It needs to be 1,500 characters of prose. This is the major issue and it is absolutely a fail based on that criteria. Beyond that, guidelines suggest multiple sources be used. See guideline D12. Beyond that, D13 says: "The subjective decision might depend on an attempt to circumvent the details of the rules, especially if the attempt does not address the underlying purpose of improving the hook and article." So yes, being short by over a third and citing only two sources are fair requirements. --LauraHale (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 20:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- The article's lede states "and has never been extended or rerouted", which is completely contradicted by the "History" section. I have removed the phrase, which unfortunately puts the article below the minimum length. Also, the infobox indicates that the route has existed from 1942 to present, which is again contradicted by the "History" section. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
What's redesignated mean? And: boring (i.e. not interesting). Josh Parris 09:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- ALT2 ... that the Violet Road was created in 1942?
Article was not ready at time. Major fixes were done to the article fourteen days after the article was nominated, completely rewriting the thing to bear little resemblance with the original nominated article. --LauraHale (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)