Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Samborombón Bay

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Samborombón Bay

[edit]
(
)

5x expanded by Bryanrutherford0 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC).

  • The article was expanded enough, is new enough, and is neutral with no copyright violations. However, three sentences are unreferenced. SL93 (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello! The DYK reviewing guidelines say that "A rule of thumb for DYK is a minimum of one citation per paragraph"; not even featured articles require a citation for every sentence. This article currently has at least one citation in every paragraph, with multiple in each of the paragraphs about nature conservation. Is there some particular claim the article makes that you feel requires a citation and currently lacks one? If not, I believe the article meets the DYK standard.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Why are you against citing those three sentences? Is it because you are unable to? SL93 (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
You don't have to cite every sentence. But,if the content is such that you think it needs a citation add a fact tag. --2601:648:8503:4467:E421:2C59:199:8E97 (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Bryanrutherford0: meeting the core policies is a DYK requirement, and WP:V is a core policy. If content in an article is unsourced, then SL93 is absolutely correct in putting the nomination on hold. Please add references to these sentences. Vanamonde (talk) 08:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Verifiability is, indeed, a core policy, which is why I asked above whether the reviewer had a verifiability issue with any specific claim the article makes; in the absence of a reply, I'll assume the answer is "yes." So, let's go through the three sentences:
  • The first is the assertion that the river and town of the same name are named after the bay. Since this claim seems disputable to some here, I've rewritten the offending sentence to say that the river and town "share the bay's name." Is that sufficiently uncontroversial?
  • The second is a description of the geographical location of the bay. I've duplicated the Britannica source to that sentence; will that suffice?
  • The third is a summary of the main rivers draining into the bay. Here, too, I've duplicated the Britannica source; will that suffice?
If any of these changes don't meet your standard, it would be very helpful if you could say specifically which claims you feel are not sufficiently supported. Thank you!-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Wow. Just cite "The Samborombón River and the town of Samborombón share the bay's name.", "a definition which includes Samborombón Bay as part of the river.", "The southern shore includes Campos del Tuyú National Park, home to a population of rare Pampas deer." and we're all good. SL93 (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm opening this up to a different reviewer. Also, the Encyclopædia Britannica doesn't reference all it claims that it does - The first sentence of Geography isn't in the source, or the first sentence of Hydrology. SL93 (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for stating more specifically which claims you felt were not supported sufficiently! Here we go:
  • As for your first quotation, the claim I'm making is that "Samborombón" and "Samborombón" are the same word; I'm confused as to how that could require a supporting source.
  • As for your second quotation, if you draw a line connecting those two points on a map, Samborombón Bay lies to the west of the line, and is thus included (by that definition) in the Río de la Plata. Again, I can't quite understand what about that sentence you feel needs further evidence to support it. Maybe this map makes it more clear?
  • As for your third quotation, I've added a source to the effect that the national park is located at the southern end of the bay and exists, in part, to preserve the Pampas deer. Actually, that source would be helpful for expanding the English-language version of the national park's article; maybe I'll do that later!
Then, in response to your parting shots about the Britannica source:
  • The first sentence of the Geography paragraph says, "Samborombón Bay is located at the mouth of the Río de la Plata, stretching from Punta Piedras in the north to Punta Rasa in the south, where Cape San Antonio begins." The first two sentences of the Britannica article state that the bay is located "at the mouth of the Río de la Plata" and "arcs southwestward, southeastward, and then eastward ... from Point Piedras to Point Norte of Cape San Antonio." They agree exactly, except in one name: Punta Rasa is the more commonly used name for the point of land that separates Samborombón Bay from the Cabo San Antonio coast (and the name used in the article about that location in the Spanish-language wiki), and there is another better-known "Punta Norte" in Argentina, a thousand kilometers to the south on the Valdes Peninsula, so I thought it more clear to use the name "Punta Rasa." Regardless, I've added a source to confirm that the point is indeed called Punta Rasa.
  • The first sentence in the Hydrology section says, "The bay receives inflow from the Southern Salado River, the Samborombón River, and other smaller streams, as well as numerous artificial canals constructed to drain eastern Buenos Aires Province." The third sentence in the Britannica article reads, "The bay receives the Samborombón River from the northwest and the Salado River from the west, as well as several canals draining the bay’s low, irrigated hinterland." They agree at every point; I'm very confused as to why you asserted that they didn't.
Thank you for pushing me to add those two new sources! I'm happy to address any further issues a reviewer feels prevent the article from meeting the DYK standard.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Why are you including a 1953 hydrographic description in the geography? --2601:648:8503:4467:382F:ECE2:14CA:E578 (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The 1953 3rd edition of "Limits of Oceans and Seas" is the current version adopted by the International Hydrographic Organization. They've intermittently worked on developing a fourth edition since then but have never officially adopted one. The 2002 draft of the fourth edition reads that the boundary between the Río de la Plata and the wider South Atlantic is "a line joining Punta del Este (34°58'S – 54°57'W) in Uruguay, southwestward to Punta Rasa del Cabo San Antonio (36°17'S – 56°47'W), in Argentina"; it can be found here. I felt that an official PDF of the active version of the IHO's definition would be a more substantial source than a working document of an unofficial draft. Do you disagree?-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm passing this as I don't see any issues with WP:Verifiability, which requires inline citations only for potentially controversial statements. I trust that SL93's review of the other criteria are adequate. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Samborombón_Bay&oldid=788054080"