Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Parker Coffin Bridge

Add links
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 Cielquiparle (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Robert Parker Coffin Bridge

(
)
Robert Parker Coffin Bridge
Robert Parker Coffin Bridge

5x expanded by HueSatLum (talk). Self-nominated at 04:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.

QPQ: No - Not done yet.
Overall: Waiting on QPQ and a replacement source. The hook is great and present in the article and source. SounderBruce 06:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review! I've added my QPQ and replaced BridgeReports with an official government source. ~huesatlum 02:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I've u-npromoted this per WT:DYK#Template:Did you know/Queue/3 Jan 28. At this point, the hook fails The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change. It's true that if it's "more than 40" today, it'll always be "more than 40", but the closer this is tied to a specific number, the less it complies with the spirit of that rule. I think we're also close to "D6 ... unresolved edit-warring".
    • @RoySmith and Bruxton: I appreciate the attention to detail on this. I didn't mean to derail this nomination -- I thought I was just correcting a slight misunderstanding. I'm struggling to understand what the exact concern is here: that the number 40 may be inaccurate, or that the number 40 is overly precise for a Wikipedia article (or a DYK hook)? If it's the former, I've found half a dozen sources that support the fact that there have been at least 40 as of September 2022 (and I'm not aware of any sources that specifically contradict this, just some that are less precise). But if it's the latter, I can be convinced that that's the right approach and change it back to "dozens". ~huesatlum 02:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
      • Hi. I'm tied up in other stuff at the moment so I don't have time to dive into the details right now, but I feel your frustration and didn't want to leave you hanging. Once something hits a queue, the clock is ticking for when it hits the main page. The first priority is to make sure the hooks are correct. If we can iron out questions on the fly, that's great, but once things get complicated, the easiest thing is to just replace the hook. Once the hook is unpromoted, we can work on it without the clock ticking and take our time to make sure we get it right. That's really all I was doing here. It doesn't sound like there's any fundamental problem that'll be hard to fix, but I wanted to get this off the clock so we could make sure it's right. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
        • Thank you, I appreciate the explanation. I am frustrated that I was never notified and arrived to the discussion late, but it was an honest mistake and there's nothing that can be done now. Once I can get a clearer picture of what the problem is, I will be happy to work to resolve it and get this back on track. ~huesatlum 03:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@HueSatLum: Hello and thanks for the message. I think the issue is one of accuracy. We settled on the word dozens because of the many conflicting figures in articles. When you disputed the figure and wanted to state 40 bridge strikes as a specific number - we cannot find agreement in sources for that figure. Bruxton (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton: I searched Google News and a news database for "long grove" bridge between September 1, 2022 and now. These are all the results I found that specify the number of strikes:

Extended content

While they are not perfectly consistent, they all support the sentence in the article that there have been at least 40 bridge strikes as of September 2022 (since the one figure under 40 says "at least"). It's possible my search missed some -- are there other sources you're aware of that contradict the number 40? ~huesatlum 03:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Here are a few.
Over 30 times September 26
32 Times September 26
30 times September 27
I think someone else will have to make a decision about this. Over 40 may be the most accurate figure based on the majority of references but I will let another prep builder decide. Bruxton (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Worth noting that those all say "at least" or "more than" or the like, but they are good to find. I will respect whichever figure the prep/queue builders decide, but at this point I don't think there's anything preventing this nomination from going back on the Approved page. @SounderBruce or Bruxton: could one of you restore the tick if you have no objections? Thanks, ~huesatlum 22:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Or anyone could give a re-review, really -- second opinions welcome. ~huesatlum 03:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I think 40 is a number repeated in many sources. I see that a few other sources claim less than 40. I will approve 40 based on the fact that it is repeated in more sources. I think that the hook saying dozens is also reasonable. Good article! Lightburst (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC) Lightburst (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Robert_Parker_Coffin_Bridge&oldid=1140299977"