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.
... that the Lang Ayre(pictured) is the longest beach in Shetland? Source: Also en-route, west of Ronas Hill are the huge red cliffs and the Lang Ayre, Shetlands longest beach.[1]
ALT1 ... that visitors to Lang Ayre(pictured), the longest beach in Shetland, are advised to carry a physical map and compass? Source: Map and compass skills required [2]
ALT2 ... that ropes are needed to descend over granite cliffs, to reach Lang Ayre(pictured), the longest beach in Shetland?
ALT3 ... that visitors to Lang Ayre(pictured), the longest beach in Shetland, are advised to carry a map and compass? Source: Map and compass skills required [3]
ALT4a ... that the Lang Ayre(pictured) on Shetland is not only its longest beach, but also that the sand is red? Source: The journey also gives access to the beautiful and (from the land) almost inaccessible red sand beach at the Lang Ayre. [4]
ALT4b ... that the Lang Ayre(pictured), the longest beach in Shetland, features red sand? Source: The journey also gives access to the beautiful and (from the land) almost inaccessible red sand beach at the Lang Ayre. [5]
Overall: User:Griceylipper I have proposed an ALT DYK, that I feel is more interesting. What are your thoughts on it? The ALT DYK seems to be unsourced in the article, can you please help to fix this. DBigXrayᗙ09:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing this nomination User:DBigXray. I have added a citation for the relevant section to the article, and I have modified the source for your ALT1 hook. I must say I personally prefer the more simple one, as (at least to me) being able to use a map and a compass on a long walk is just common sense, however this may be of interest to readers of the front page, so I am not bothered either way. Griceylipper (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind reply. I am marking the cite as AGF for offline hook. Since we could not agree on the better hook, I would let another reviewer close this. DBigXrayᗙ16:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray I'm afraid ALT2 isn't true - you don't descend down the cliffs (that would only be done by experienced climbers, as the cliffs are very brittle), and the rope isn't required. Have a look here for a better idea of what the ravine and the rope are like. As per the link, "The rope isn't essential, but it is a big help and security blanket..." I would reference this in the article, however WP:BLOGS means I can't use a blog being written under an anonymous pseudonym as a source. Griceylipper (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Griceylipper: I have just read the article, thinking about reviewing the hooks. I notice that there is a "citation needed" tag at the end of the last sentence. That will need sourcing before this can be approved.
What struck me as particularly interesting about this beach is that it's red, and I think that could make a good hook. What do you think? Do you have any reliable sources which you could add to the sentence that starts "The sand is composed of red granite"? I just tried googling, but mostly found blogs or a band's website, but perhaps you have books that aren't online that mention this? RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaGreen I've reworded and cited both the last sentence and the lead mentioning the red sand, have a look and see what you think. I'm a local to this area, and hadn't even considered how unusual the red sand may be to the average reader. Thanks for this! Griceylipper (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Griceylipper, thanks for that! The sources for the red sand and the last sentence look fine. I'm having a bit of trouble with the "easterly and north-easterly winds" you mention there, though - the source says "The coast from Ketligill Head to Uyea is open to westerly and north-westerly swell". Does that translate to "easterly and north-easterly winds"? Consider me an ignoramus where winds and tides are concerned. If it does, then perhaps it would be as well to be explicit in the article, as other readers, including any looking for problems in mainpage articles, might be as ignorant as me.
Re a hook about the red sand, would you like to write one? Just a short simple one, I'd suggest. Or copy the wording of the original hook, and add it to the end. Then I could approve it - if I write it, I would have to ask for another reviewer. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen: I've added an ALT4 for your consideration. ALT3 is fine, too, subject to the article not specifying 'physical' as discussed in the talk page. (I'm unlikely to be able to follow up. GraceyL, could you add the source to the hook for me, please?) Nick Moyes (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Moyes Added source, I also have suggested an ALT4b with slightly different wording. The term "on" as in "on Shetland" is disliked by Shetlanders (myself included) - it sort of implies we're clinging to a tiny rock and might get washed "off" at any moment. The word "in" is preferred. Griceylipper (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I don't think it should be a problem that you've referred to winds and the sources refers to swells - I hope it won't. I don't know if it's common knowledge - it makes sense to me, but then I just looked at the article on Swell (ocean), and got confused. Anyway, we'll leave it as it is, now that the directions are right.
Approving ALT4b (and if required, ALT3, though I don't find that as interesting). Main review as per DBigXrayᗙ. The new ALT4b is stated and sourced in the article. All queries and sourcing issues have been addressed. As the creator/nominator prefers not to use the wording in ALT4a, and also because it's longer and a bit more complex, I'm striking it. The original hook is OK, but not very interesting, so I'll strike it too. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A fact from Lang Ayre appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 November 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the Lang Ayre(pictured), the longest beach in Shetland, has red sand?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands in Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Scottish IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish IslandsTemplate:WikiProject Scottish IslandsScottish Islands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
@Griceylipper: You have reverted my edit for the wrong reasons. It is quite unnecessary and very clumsy to want to stress the term "physical map and compass" rather than just "map and compass" or "map-reading skills are needed". In your edit summary you cite your reason for revertimg me to a local newspaper story about some person bimbling along with no navigational equipment or skill and a flat phone battery, getting themselves lost in clag and needing rescuing. That's no justification whatsoever for explicitly stating in the article (and, worse still, in a potential DYK Hook) that a real, printed map is required, as opposed to other recognised forms of hillwalking navigation aids, such as GPS or phone/sat nav app. One person's failure to go out prepared shouldn't slew an article that you hope to put on the main page. You would need to cite an extremely good sorce if you intend to imply that electronic navigation aids are not appropriate to reach this beach and that only a real, physical map will do. (I say this as an experienced mountaineer who always prefers to use a physical map and a real compass, but I would never push my personal choice into a Wikipedia article about my local hills, when other recognised devices would do the job adequately. So please reinsert my edit, or cite a much better reason not to. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nick Moyes: - I must respectfully disagree with your opinion on this matter. While I totally agree that for most intents and purposes electronic forms of navigation such as sat-nav apps are perfectly adequate - and more convenient - to get you from point A to B and back again, I don't think it is controversial to suggest that a sat-nav with a flat battery is no more useful to its user than a paperweight. Therefore, to stay safe on a long walk such as this, there is little safer alternative than a paper map. I would agree that the person in the article I referenced in my revert was certainly ignorant, but I don't think you can reasonably say that his chances of being able to get back safely himself wouldn't have been significantly higher if he'd taken a paper map and compass with him (assuming he was competent in reading and using). While a completely lost person in a life threatening situation like this is (thankfully) a rare occurrence, people who ought to know better do get caught out like this, and especially when the landscape around this area features steep cliffs and is prone to low lying mist, having as foolproof a method of navigation available at all times is paramount.
For a source on this, see this route to Ronas Hill and back on the Ordnance Survey website - the route details section has directions from the Country Walking Magazine, and in what looks to me like a standard disclaimer it advises the use of a paper map. I don't have a copy of the magazine in question, but would this be satisfactory? Also, I did not say that the beach cannot be reached without using a paper map - I said "walkers are advised to be familiar with the usage of a physical map and a compass to be able to navigate back with poor visibility." Again, I don't think this is particularly controversial. I am more than willing to add some sort of explanation along the lines of "in case your sat nav dies" to the text to make it more unambiguous what I am getting at.
For the record, the DYK hook referencing the physical map was not my suggestion - I would rather have the hook simply refer to the length of the beach. I did not think my mention of a physical map would be particularly noteworthy (or controversial!) Let me know your thoughts. Griceylipper (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry, Griceylipper, but I fear you're missing the point. First off, this is not a long walk, it's clearly a moderate 5km walk, rising to heights no more than 450 metres. It's hardly a full day hike to a remote Scottish Munro, or to the summit of Mont Blanc. We do not give advice on which precise types of safety equipment to carry in normal encyclopaedia articles about UK hills or mountains; less so for a 5km moorland walk to a beach. Your response above leaves me feeling you're trying to use this article as a platform to tell people what to take with them outdoors. Just saying something along the lines of 'map reading skills' or 'familiarity with map and compass' is fine, which is what all guidebooks say. If you can quote from the Cicerone Press guidebook a sentence that explicitly advises walkers should carry a physical map alongside a compass to undertake this particular route, then I will acquiesce. But I don't believe for one moment it does, and I feel your insistence on inserting what's really just trivial and unnecessary advice to walkers into this particularly benign article (for which, well done on creating it, by the way) only services to make it sound a bit silly. Your justification of basing it on a standard disclaimer on the walking website, cited above, is pure WP:SYNTH. And so, if this lovely new article is going on the main page, I argue that stating a physical map must be carried is quite inappropriate. (But for what it's worth, I prefer your original DYK hook, and not those of the other editor.) See my small, but significant, suggested text change below:
Your text: The route...over Ronas Hill is prone to low-lying mist, so walkers are advised to be familiar with the usage of a physical map and a compass to be able to navigate back with poor visibility.
My recommended text: The route...over Ronas Hill is prone to low-lying mist, so walkers are advised to be familiar with using a map and compass to navigate back in poor visibility.
Even that, I feel is unnecessary as we're an encyclopaedia not a guidebook on how to do walking routes, but I'd be happy for you to leave my amended version in, but not yours as it stands. And whatever you do, don't add warning about 'in case your sat nav dies' - that would sound even dafter than it does at present. I really am sorry to come across as nit-picking and pedantic, but I don't sense you have much perspective on UK hillwalking, but you clearly do have a laudable wish to see people go safely in our hills, as indeed do I. This article - and Wikipedia in general - simply isn't the place to do it. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Collafirth Hill, where the walk begins Hi Nick Moyes. I mean no ill-will by this, however might I suggest that your idea of a "long walk" will probably be a bit biased, seeing as you are a mountaineer? I am sure that to the average reader of Wikipedia, a minimum of 10km would absolutely be considered a long walk, especially when you take into consideration the terrain - you can't just walk in a straight line, you have to weave around thousands of boulders for a good proportion of the way there (see picture). Whether or not you think I have much perspective on UK hillwalking is irrelevant - this article ought to be written with the average reader in mind, not just those readers who are mountaineers themselves.
Regardless of whether you think the information I have included is "silly", if you believe that the information I have included is not considered encyclopaedic, and therefore shouldn't be included - that I consider a totally fair reason to remove the info. Now, I am happy to alter the text to your suggested version based on this, however if you'll humour me for an enquiry of my own - forgetting the difference between paper/electronic devices for the moment, is the point that a walker should take a map/compass at all considered encyclopaedic? Perhaps this statement would also be considered too close to the content of a guidebook, and should be removed entirely? I personally am finding it difficult to discern where the line should be drawn. I am not trying to be deliberately contrarian here, I just want what's best for the article and Wikipedia as a whole - which I am sure is also your aim. Once we come to a consensus on this I will make the edits, and strikethough the relevant alt hook for the DYK. I do appreciate your patience with me on this matter! Griceylipper (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Griceylipper I have proposed an ALT DYK, that I feel is more interesting. What are your thoughts on it? The ALT DYK seems to be unsourced in the article, can you please help to fix this. DBigXrayᗙ 09:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind reply. I am marking the cite as AGF for offline hook. Since we could not agree on the better hook, I would let another reviewer close this. DBigXrayᗙ 16:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Approving ALT4b (and if required, ALT3, though I don't find that as interesting). Main review as per DBigXrayᗙ. The new ALT4b is stated and sourced in the article. All queries and sourcing issues have been addressed. As the creator/nominator prefers not to use the wording in ALT4a, and also because it's longer and a bit more complex, I'm striking it. The original hook is OK, but not very interesting, so I'll strike it too. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
