Template:Did you know nominations/Osbaston, Monmouth

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: promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Osbaston, Monmouth

(

)

... that a hydropower scheme (pictured) in Osbaston in Monmouth allows salmon to travel up the River Monnow for the first time in 300 years?

Comment: DYK a map of MonmouthpediA looks like this?

Created/expanded by Antarchie (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 18:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Checks out, except the article needs rewriting to fix close paraphrasing. For example, from this source alone, the following segments are identical: "of electricity per year which is sold to the national grid", "fed water to the works via a canal the", "the combined fish pass and hydroelectric project was", "driven by water turbines beneath the building", "run by old manor electric company uses", "the generating building housed three alternators ", "decided to rebuild a small hydroelectric", "to allow salmon to spawn upstream". --Epipelagic (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've now had a go at rewriting that section. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If this gets approved then can it run on April 19th when MonmouthpediA competion results are announced Victuallers (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's the result of the rewriting, but I couldn't find support in the article for the hook fact. First, the article doesn't indicate how long the weir blocked fish passage. Second, the article lacks inline citations to references to support the statement that the weir prevented salmon and other fish reaching their spawning grounds. Statements that are used in the hook need to be in the article -- and footnotes are needed adjacent to the relevant sentences.

Furthermore, in doing my own online research, it's not clear whether the river was closed to salmon for 300 years or for "just" ~90 years. This source says the weir blocked passage since 1917. This source and this one give the 300-year number. This source (paper downloaded from this website, as a 2011 award winner) says the "earliest record of a weir on the River Monnow at Osbaston dates back to the start of the 18th century" and that salmon had not been seen upstream of Osbaston Weir "in living memory", but it is not clear if the blockage was continuous since the 19th century.

I hope the creator or nominator can sort this out, add some more sources to the article, and come up with a hook that is clearly true. --Orlady (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that Osbaston's hydropower station (pictured) uses an Archimedes screw to power a generator?
ALT2 ... that Osbaston's hydropower station (pictured) was opened in 2009 after being shut down since the 50s?
ALT3 ... that Osbaston's hydropower station (pictured) can produce 670 MWh of electricity each year, enough to power over 150 homes?

This is good to go. Long enough and new enough and no obvious problems. My preference would be for ALT 3. Moswento (talk | contribs) 10:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)