Template:Did you know nominations/The Big Treehouse

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 97198 (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The Big Treehouse

(

)

... that The Big Treehouse is a tree house that covers 5,000 square feet and has 12 levels that go up to five and a half stories tall?
- ALT1:... that The Big Treehouse is a tree house that has a long spiral staircase which contains 60 steps?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Barbara Hammond

Created by SL93 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC).

So the Big Treehouse is a treehouse, is it? E Eng 10:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Not very good sarcasm and not helpful either. My reasoning for that is for the wikilink alone. SL93 (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

If you think that the purpose of the hook is to let people know it's a treehouse, that's daft. SL93 (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Calm down. My point is that most readers know what a treehouse is, so that it's certainly unnecessary, in the hook, to state that a treehouse is a treehouse just for the sake of the link. People who don't know what a treehouse is can click through to the article.

ALT2 ... that The Big Treehouse has 5,000 square feet on 12 levels five and a half stories tall?

ALT3:... that The Big Treehouse has a sixty-step spiral staircase?

E Eng 03:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I get your point now. It just wasn't obvious from your sarcasm. SL93 (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I added back some of what you removed. I disagree and your reasoning for your removal of the host sentence was vague and I disagree that the builder is not lead-worthy. I refuse to bend to some editor's opinions, with no links to policy, who just happens to come along. SL93 (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Why are you so against discussing it first? SL93 (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

If you're talking about the hooks here on this nom page, I'll leave it to whomever reviews this nom to decide whether they're improvements. If you're talking about the article itself, editing by others who just happen to come along is what WP:BOLD is all about, and doesn't require linking to policy in every case. It can, for example, have to do with remedying just plain bad writing (since you seem intent on getting me to come right out and say it). E Eng 05:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about removing article content, not copy editing it. SL93 (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Deciding what to include and what to omit is part of writing. Surely you can find something interesting to add to get the article back to the 1500 minimum. E Eng 05:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I can do that and I also found another article to use, but I still don't think a discussion first would be bad. I guess we will have to disagree. SL93 (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's a formal review.

General eligibility:

New enough:
Long enough: - not quite long enough

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - the primary hook is not cited directly at the corresponding sentence.
Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: It should be fairly easy to fix up. The number of steps doesn't do it for me but the number of porch swings might. The original hook seems the best of the current hooks. Tightening its wording might help but ALT2 doesn't read right. And, finally, it's a shame that there isn't a picture but I can't find one either. Andrew D. (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the issues and clarified what the bridges are. SL93 (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I tried searching for images too, but I can't find any free use ones. It really is a shame. SL93 (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Any other issues? SL93 (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Needs a new reviewer. No response from original reviewer after 7 days. SL93 (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is new enough and long enough, only just long enough so I expanded the lead slightly. Either hook could be used, both being cited inline. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)