Talk:Kirkby Ski Slope

Merseyside Low‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 JuniperChill talk 14:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Kirkby Ski Slope, built in the 1970s in Liverpool, was never used?

Source: "Building work began on the development, located between Kirkby Stadium and the M57, in November 1973.

Predicted to open to the public in 1974, the slope encountered numerous issues, such as vandalism and problems with the surface and, in 1975, the project was abandoned."

Taken from: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseysides-back-front-ski-slope-17597070

- ALT1: ...schoolchildren in the town of Kirkby, Liverpool, were paid 25 pence an hour to help build Kirkby Ski Slope, even though the slope never opened?
Source: Taken from: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseysides-back-front-ski-slope-17597070

Reviewed:

Created by LicenceToCrenellate (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Other problems:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Happy to confirm this interesting and well researched article --AntientNestor (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review it. I've added a citation that backs up the claims about the lack of railings and the surface.LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6