Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Mega Manila Subway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Mega Manila Subway

[edit]
[[File:|120x133px|Artist's impression of a train running in the Mega Manila Subway. ]]
Artist's impression of a train running in the Mega Manila Subway.

Created by Arius1998 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC).

  • Long enough (several thousand characters), new enough (nominated day after publishing), QPQ done, no disambig links. However, there are two broken links footnotes 1 (Mega Manila Subway, "Philippine Infrastructure Transparency Portal") and 13 ("Main Points of the Roadmap") which ought to be fixed - especially the former since it's a ref for infobox stats. Relatedly, could you also give a reference for the table listing the 13 proposed stations? Earwig detector currently gives a 15% copyvio score, but that is mainly for Proper Nouns that cannot be changed, like "Roadmap for Transport Infrastructure Development for Metro Manila and Its Surrounding Areas" and "The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) Board" - so, no copyvio problems.
I would suggest to not use this article's image in the DYK since it is a fairly generic artist's impression. While not required for the DYK, I would recommend that this article be linked from the prose sections of Metro Manila#Railway systems and Manila Metro Rail Transit System.
I propose a simplified version of Hook 1: "...that the proposed Mega Manila Subway would be the first subway system in The Philippines?". It is important, I believe, to clarify even in the hook that this is a proposal not a currently-under-construction project. This is referenced by the same two footnotes provided to back up the initial proposed hook (refs 5 & 6).
So - when these two minor reference problems are provided/fixed, it'd say it's ready to go. Sincerely, Wittylama 16:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Greetings, @Wittylama:. Your inputs are much appreciated. For the broken links, I fixed the first one ("Main Points of the Roadmap") but the second one is quite problematic. While at the time of publication, the subsite works fine (the article was written only a day since the subsite was launched on 18 April), this time it is not functioning properly. It seems that this new government subsite for infrastructure projects is in beta version, and at this moment, even the main page is not functioning well. I hope this is understandable. I am good with your proposed hook, as well as the exclusion of the image, provided that it will prove beneficial to its passage as DYK. Thank you. Arius1998 (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
All points addressed. . Wittylama 14:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)