Template:Did you know nominations/St Collins Lane
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
St Collins Lane
[edit]- ... that the St Collins Lane shopping centre in Melbourne is the third shopping arcade constructed on its site?
- ALT1:... that the St Collins Lane shopping arcade replaced a building considered one of Melbourne's worst? Source: "In later years, Australia on Collins was criticised as "a poor man's temple to the great god of commercialism" and included in a list of Melbourne's worst buildings by The Age newspaper." (Source)
Created/expanded by Triptothecottage (talk). Self-nominated at 03:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC).
Length, reference and history verified. Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Daniel Case, please include all the elements of a review in your note. Is it new/expanded in time? Any copyvios? Neutral? Sourced? Does the hook check out and have an inline citation? Though you may already have checked for these, it is impossible to know without you saying so. Thanks, --!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernameunique (talk • contribs)
- @Usernameunique: It says "length, history and reference verified" That means what it says ... that I've verified that it's long enough, was created (in this case moved into mainspace) in time, and the hook fact reference is valid. Daniel Case (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Daniel Case, those three things are not sufficient for a complete DYK review. You also need to check the other required criteria (helpfully listed above the edit window, and also at WP:DYK): that both article and hook are neutral, that the article is free from copyvio and close paraphrasing, that the article itself is adequately sourced, and that a QPQ has been supplied if the nominator has sufficient previous DYK credits (in this case, the nominator appears to be a first-time nominator, so no QPQ is needed). Please complete the review. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Usernameunique: It says "length, history and reference verified" That means what it says ... that I've verified that it's long enough, was created (in this case moved into mainspace) in time, and the hook fact reference is valid. Daniel Case (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Daniel Case, please include all the elements of a review in your note. Is it new/expanded in time? Any copyvios? Neutral? Sourced? Does the hook check out and have an inline citation? Though you may already have checked for these, it is impossible to know without you saying so. Thanks, --!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernameunique (talk • contribs)
- (@Daniel Case:@Usernameunique:@BlueMoonset: Just for transparency's sake, this is actually my second DYK nom – the first was a copyvio which I foolishly promoted to mainspace. If I understand correctly, I'm still free from the QPQ requirement.) Triptothecottage (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: OK, since you have asked ...
- The article has, according to copypasting it into MS Word since the DYKcheck offered by the toolbox is a utility in name only (I mean, really ... a kindergartner could code better than that!) and always has been, 539 words, nine paragraphs, 3,373 characters with spaces and 2,843 without. Therefore it is long enough.
- Per Earwig's Copyvio detector (I did not run it against the dupe detector since you did not give specifics as to which page you believe Triptothecottage may have copied it from; based on the copyvio detector it appears there would be no need to do that anyway), it is 9.9% copied, so it's not considered copyvio. The one clause that it identifies as perhaps closely paraphrased I'm not worried about since there are a limited number of ways to say it.
- It is adequately sourced by the usual Wikipedia reviewing standards, i.e. no grafs or standalone sentences end without references and none of the sources cited appear to be anything but reputably published books and newspapers whose reliability is not in doubt.
- As noted above, the nominator is exempt from QPQ since they have not nominated enough yet.
- We're still waiting on the results of the stool samples nominator was asked to submit.
- Thanks. I apologize for making good-faith assumptions that the nominator was trying to sneak copyvio into Wikipedia; I will be more suspicious and mistrustful in the future. Happy editing! Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- Daniel Case, you're free to be as suspicious and mistrustful as you want, though your assertion that I believed there was copyvio is something you might want to apologize for since it simply isn't true—it has always been your responsibility to check DYK nominations you're reviewing for copyvio and close paraphrasing, and one that I do hope you'll do on all your future reviews without the fuss that you indulged in here. (And don't forget the neutrality check when you do so.) I'm very sorry that Triptothecottage, who has indeed acted in good faith throughout and pointed out a previous DYK nomination I was unaware of, was subjected to this unnecessary display. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- 💩 <- that should finish the nomination ;) Thanks BlueMoonset and Daniel Case! Triptothecottage (talk) 06:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- Daniel Case, you're free to be as suspicious and mistrustful as you want, though your assertion that I believed there was copyvio is something you might want to apologize for since it simply isn't true—it has always been your responsibility to check DYK nominations you're reviewing for copyvio and close paraphrasing, and one that I do hope you'll do on all your future reviews without the fuss that you indulged in here. (And don't forget the neutrality check when you do so.) I'm very sorry that Triptothecottage, who has indeed acted in good faith throughout and pointed out a previous DYK nomination I was unaware of, was subjected to this unnecessary display. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: OK, since you have asked ...
