Template:Did you know nominations/Welcome Rotonda

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 PFHLai (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome Rotonda

(

)

... that in 1995, a businessman scaled the Welcome Rotonda (pictured) and staged a hunger strike to urge the government to disqualify Chinese Filipino candidates from running in that year's election?

Reviewed: Doing...

Created by Sky Harbor (talk). Self nominated at 10:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC).

Article is new enough, long enough, and neutral. Hook is verified with inline reference. No close paraphrasing detected. Image is public domain. QPQ still not done. -Zanhe (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This user isn't required to do a QPQ yet (I count only one previous DYK credit). However, I have some concerns about support for some of the factual information in the article, including the hook:

Sources and the article seem to use the word "Rotonda" to mean both the roundabout and the monument built in the middle of the roundabout. For the article and hook, I suggest that a clear distinction need be made. That is, when discussing what the businessman climbed, say that it was the monument in the Welcome Rotonda (it doesn't make much sense to say that he climbed the roundabout).
The sources seem to differ as to why he climbed the monument. According to source 3, he wanted "to get the government to ban Chinese-Filipinos from running for public office." Source 4 indicates that he hoped to get voters to reject "candidates with Chinese blood". Are there other sources that could resolve this? (Note that offline sources and non-English sources are acceptable -- not every source needs to be online and in English language.) If this cannot be resolved, possibly the article and hook could be revised to say something like "as a protest against Chinese Filipino candidates running in that year's election."
The first sentence in the last paragraph of article lacks credibility. The factual question of whether the site of the rotonda is high terrain should not be presented as a matter of hearsay or speculation (as in "believed to be built in one of the highest portions") -- either it is on high terrain (according to measured elevations) or it isn't. Is there another source that could be used on this point? The cited source appears to indicate (in "the rotonda, which is toted as the city’s highest point") that the monument is the highest point in Quezon City -- can that be verified from another source? Also, the statement that "which explains why many of the streets on the Quezon City side of the roundabout were named after Philippine mountains" looks like speculation or even original research, both in the source and the Wikipedia article. Original research doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Also, it's not at all obvious that this information belongs in the encyclopedia article, regardless of its source -- street names in the area aren't part of the story of the Rotonda.
Speaking of facts, is information available on the height and other dimensions of the monument? Is there a free image of it? In the pictures I've seen (in sources), it looks much more imposing than the text descriptions suggest.

Also, note that the image isn't likely to be used, because it is difficult to see the roundabout and the monument at small scale. I'd like to see the hook give a little more of the kind of context that an image can provide. For example:

ALT1 ... that in 1995 a businessman climbed the monument at Welcome Rotonda and staged a hunger strike in protest against Chinese Filipino candidates running in the Philippine general election? --Orlady (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and greetings from Portland and from Open Source Bridge 2014! Please allow me to address some of your points below:

I can make that distinction, and since that change has already been made in the new hook, I'll gladly support it. :)
I don't see a difference here. The way I interepreted the two sources, Ducat demanded that the government not recognize the candidacy of Chinese Filipino candidates in that year's election, which implies candidates with Chinese blood. The hook reflects that as it is in its original form.
The reference in question is arguably one of the few stories available in print about not only the Welcome Rotonda itself, but the area immediately surrounding it. A reliable source printing an interview about it does not mean it's original research: note that the source is an article in a reputable Philippine newspaper. As for more technical data, I'm not sure there would be any, but it would probably be not available online, and I would have to dig through sources when I return in the Philippines this September to do so should that be the case.

I hope I've addressed your concerns so far, and I look forward to seeing this come to fruition. Thanks. :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 23:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Sky Harbor. Regarding your first bullet, I'm glad my suggested hook wording works for you -- but note that the distinction does need to be in the article, not just in the proposed hook.

In reply to your second bullet, I fully agree that both sources indicate his opposition to Chinese Filipinos running for elective office. The sources differ in their identification of who the protest was aimed at convincing. Source 3 says he was trying to get the government to ban Chinese Filipinos from being candidates, while source 4 says he wanted people to vote against Chinese Filipino candidates. The original hook is consistent with source 3, but it is contradicted by source 4.

Regarding your third bullet, while a newspaper article republished on a blog has diminished credibility as a source, when compared to the original newspaper, that was not my main concern with that source. Rather, my concern was that the person interviewed (who was the source for almost all of the facts in the article) is a storekeeper whose information seems to be largely based on his recollections of stories told by his grandfather and father. Neither the grandfather nor the son or grandson appears to be a reliable source. For purposes of DYK, that should not prevent the use of this article -- because this source is not the basis for the hook, and several statements footnoted to this source contain information that is (or at least once was) "general knowledge" that would not require any special expertise. Regarding specific items sourced to that interview:

I highlighted the statement that the hilly terrain around the rotonda "explains why many of the streets on the Quezon City side of the roundabout were named after Philippine mountains" because it appears to be based only on speculation by one of these men. Since the statement isn't about the rotonda, it could be removed from the article without adverse effects.
The statement that the rotonda is "believed to be built in one of the highest portions" of Quezon City is inappropriate, regardless of its source. The relative elevation of the rotonda site is a piece of factual information that should be determinable. An encyclopedia should not report this kind of fact as if it were local tradition or hearsay; if the relative elevation can't be determined from a published source such as a gazetteer or a map, it doesn't belong in the article. --Orlady (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the statement in question has been removed. With respect to the remaining two items, I'm currently working on it, and I think can add some continued improvements to the text to make it more representative of the article's 'facts on the ground'. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 23:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

All remaining changes that Orlady suggested should be made have been made, and I hope these address the concerns raised on this page. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

My concerns with the article are addressed. However, I've made a lot of edits to the article, so I'm no longer qualified to approve it for DYK. We need another reviewer. --Orlady (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

All issues have been addressed. Article is new enough, barely long enough, and neutral. ALT1 is verified with inline reference. No close paraphrasing detected. Image is public domain. QPQ not required. Good to go. -Zanhe (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)