Template:Did you know nominations/Sugarbush Hill
- 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 Bruxton talk 16:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Sugarbush Hill
- ... that Sugarbush Hill was once thought to be the highest elevation in Wisconsin? Source: Sugarbush Hill rated the highest point in the state
- ALT1: ... that that Sugarbush Hill in Wisconsin was once known as Rat Lake Hill? Source: Rat Lake Hill
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Nakba denial
Moved to mainspace by Lightburst (talk). Self-nominated at 14:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sugarbush Hill; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- ? - Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
QPQ: 
Overall: 
- Hey, Lightburst...I'm wondering if we should tweak the hook. The fact it was once considered the highest point doesn't seem all that interesting, but if we could fill in some info about the fact communities were fighting over what was the highest point, it might be more so? Valereee (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Valereee: That makes sense. And thanks for cleaning up some errors in there. Sometimes hard to see my own mistakes.Lightburst (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- ALT3: ... that at different times Sugarbush Hill, Rib Mountain, and Timms Hill each held the title of highest elevation in Wisconsin?
- Maybe something like this? My mind is not working as well as I would like today. Lightburst (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2023 (UT
- ALT4: ... that there have been ongoing conflicts for decades about whether Sugarbush Hill is the highest point in Wisconsin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee (talk • contribs)
- @Valereee: that is an interesting hook. Thanks! Lightburst (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Lightburst, do you have a preference for ALT4 over ALT3? If so, we need someone else to approve. I like it better, too, but obviously can't approve it. Valereee (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Valereee: I like 4 because it focusses on the subject. Lightburst (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Lightburst, do you have a preference for ALT4 over ALT3? If so, we need someone else to approve. I like it better, too, but obviously can't approve it. Valereee (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Valereee: that is an interesting hook. Thanks! Lightburst (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Help needed to approve ALT4, which I suggested and which is nominator's preference. Valereee (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Lightburst: @Valereee: I'd be happy to take over the review 😁 I have adjusted the checklist above after verifying that the article is free of plagiarism, and that ALT4 is interesting. There are only two minor concerns I have before passing. First, could you add a citation following the claim that the "Wausau Daily Herald called Sugar Bush Hill "Rat Lake Hill"," as it is currently unclear (at least to me) which citation this is coming from. The other thing is with your QPQ: your review got turned down as the article still had problems with neutrality. Do either of you two know if this could be a problem? I'm not sure if this means the QPQ won't count, as while I've done about a dozen DYK nominations at this point, this is my first time seeing something like this. Idk, still something I thought I should mention. When these two things get sorted out, I have no problem with passing. Cheers! Johnson524 06:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hey, Johnson524, thanks! A failed review still counts as a QPQ (we don't want to discourage failing a submission if it's necessary). I've reinserted the reference, something may have been edited to separate that statement from its source, good catch. Valereee (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
