Template:Did you know nominations/Schweizer Seilbahninventar
- 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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
It has been over a month since the nominator has edited on Wikipedia, and there has been no response to a ping to their talk page nor any interest expressed by anyone to take over this nomination. Closing as unsuccessful.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Schweizer Seilbahninventar
- ... that Schweizer Seilbahninventar is a heritage inventory only about aerial cableways, funiculars and ski lifts found in the country? Source: [1] [2]
- Reviewed: exempt
- Comment: possibly globally the only one
Created by Enhancing999 (talk). Self-nominated at 12:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Schweizer Seilbahninventar; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
As it stands, the article is in need of major work. The hook fact is only cited to the end of the paragraph that discusses the hook fact (or more technically, the footnote), instead of each relevant sentence like is required. I don't understand German so I'd normally assume good faith for the sourcing, and a machine translation does seem to confirm the "elevators are not included" part at least. Given the source is in German I'd like to ask a German speaker like Gerda Arendt to check the source ([3]) and verify if the information is indeed confirmed in the source.
- The major issue, however, is that the article is in dire need of copyediting. The tone to me at least seems strange and doesn't feel like a Wikipedia article. If the article is to be approved, it would first need to be copyedited.
- The nominator has only one prior DYK nomination and so they are indeed exempt from doing a QPQ. However, they have not edited since the middle of May. As such, I'm marking the nomination for closure, without prejudice against the nomination being resumed if another editor adopts this or the nominator returns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Ping as the above ping didn't work. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- I looked at the two sources given by the nominator, and they support what the hook says if we drop the "only" (which is ambiguous anyway, not clear if related to "historic" or to the types of lifts. I agree about the article concerns, and have no extra time to do somehig about it. The two sources do support, however, that the database is unique. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Ping as the above ping didn't work. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)