Template:Did you know nominations/Pocinho railway station

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 Lightburst talk 17:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Pocinho railway station

(

)

The Pocinho station in 2009.

... that the Pocinho railway station (pictured) is the first Portuguese transport related Good Article in Wikipedia? Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Portugal

New hook:

... that the Comboio Presidencial, a train that used to carry the Head of State of Portugal through the Douro Line since 1890, had the Pocinho railway station (pictured) as its last stop? Source:https://expresso.pt/boa-cama-boa-mesa/2023-11-16-Com-menu-assinado-por-Chakall-Comboio-Presidencial-regressa-ao-Douro-em-marco-de-2024-da2bd6ce
- Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by V.B.Speranza (talk). Self-nominated at 16:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Pocinho railway station; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

As interesting a fact as it is, it is not stated within the article, nor is it sourced to a reliable source (see WP:DYKHOOK). Though, this article is eligible for DYK, so if you devise an alternate hook I can give a full review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the article myself to see if anything can be proposed but nothing came to mind initially. Maybe either Epicgenius, SounderBruce, or Trainsandotherthings may have some ideas? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

"Meta" statements like the proposed hook aren't a thing done in DYK. I see nothing in the article that would make a good DYK hook, quite frankly, because so much of it isn't even about the station. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk: New proposal done! V.B.Speranza (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@V.B.Speranza: Will you be able to propose a new hook? If not then unfortunately the nomination may have to be failed for lack of a suitable hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: New proposal done! V.B.Speranza (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk: Requesting a new review for ALT1. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

AGF for foreign language source- approve ALT1 MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 06:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk: Actually a full review hasn't been done yet, so please check the other DYK criteria as well, not just the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: The article recently passed GA criteria, what’s left to be reviewed? It seems to pass WP:DYKCRIT. V.B.Speranza (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't use the review template. Here it is:

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral: - Not sure if it falls under neutrality, but I have a concern regarding the history section. There's tons of about the Douro line that really belongs on that article, not this one. A lot of this should be cut, including paras 2, most of 5, 6, and most of 7.
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: V.B.Speranza See neutrality concerns above MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 08:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk: I honestly think that most of the information “about the Douro line” is directly related to the station, the parts that aren’t provide background information that wouldn’t benefit anyone if removed. Concerning the neutrality I don’t see any problem, if you could give me some examples of where the neutrality is challenged I would love to fix them. V.B.Speranza (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk: Does the above satisfy your concerns? Z1720 (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

V.B.Speranza It's not necessarily a neutrality issue, I just didn't know where else to put it. I see that it may be relevant to this station in particular, but a lot of the info seems rather unimportant in its broader history- take On 27 January 2012, four young Spaniards were arrested by soldiers from the National Republican Guard at Pocinho station when they were graffitiing a parked train.[52] They were brought before the Foz Côa court, which ordered bail of 200 euros and imposed a restraining order on them.[52] Could just be my perception, but "kids graffiti train and get arrested" isn't that notable, which is only proven further by the fact that it's sourced to one news article. Or look at On 15 August of that year, the Minister of Public Works paid a visit to Pocinho. Is the minister coming to the station notable? I do not see how it's important to the rest of that paragraph. Those are the only two big issues I can spot. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 09:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk: Problem solved, I deleted the part about the graffiti kids, and change the other one so that it correlates better with the following sentence (resulted of poor translation, sorry bt. V.B.Speranza (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

All good now, AGF for foreign language sources. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)