Template:Did you know nominations/Desert of Maine
- 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) 18:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Desert of Maine
Desert Of Maine
- ... that there is a "desert" in the U.S. state of Maine called the Desert of Maine? source
- Reviewed:
Improved to Good Article status by AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk). Self-nominated at 23:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Desert of Maine; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Drive-by comment (not a full review): (1) "only desert in New England" does not appear in the article, and needs to before this hook can be approved; (2) quora is not a reliable source, and neither is the YouTube video used as a reference in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) AverageEstoniaEnthusiast Welcome. Regarding the hook it is catchy and would be a quirky hook, however it needs to be in the article. The article has the correct inline citations and is neutral. Recently promoted to GA so it fits our criteria for inclusion. First DYK nomination so a QPQ is not needed. Since there is no RS which states the hook it needs a reference. The article and hook are interesting. In addition to the hook I have a concern about a copyright violation, the detector picks up. See here. Bruxton (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- I edited the source and hook. The readability of the hook might be a little bit wonky, so let me know if you want it changed. I will start working on filtering out the plagiarism in the article.AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- After doing a bit of investigating, I found that the version with the 'plagiarized' information was actually fully stolen from the Wikipedia article at the time. To be fair, the "Random Times" sounds pretty sketchy, so a stunt like this is most definitely something they would do. For proof of this, see Revision as of 14:17, 3 February 2021 Basically exactly what Crescent77 said.
It's pretty clear the article of copyright concern is copypasta that takes most of its material from WP, most of the rest from sources referenced here. Alot of the material in question has been on WP for years, while the article of concern is only a little more than a year old. Crescent77 (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- I removed a youtube reference see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Bruxton (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- From WP:RSPYT: "Content uploaded from a verified official account ... may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability." The content being cited comes from the management of the attraction, which would be an unreliable source for anything with promotional tendencies, but I think it can be accepted for something as neutral as when the attraction got its current name. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Bryanrutherford0, AverageEstoniaEnthusiast, and David Eppstein: Bryanrutherford0 you have left out the most important part of WP:RSPYT where they give an example of a verified account that is acceptable
such as that of a news organization
. This video is a YouTube cartoon created by a privately owned company. Is it really needed for the article? It seems easy to replace this with another reference and maybe move this YouTube video to external links? The article is somewhat incomplete (D7) in that we also do not list the recent new owners or previous owners in the article. Also here is an archived Boston Magazine article about the place. Possibly some lines in that article would support ALT0 withcultural definitions
of desert. I hope to approve a new hook or find support for ALT0, but we have these other issues to sort out. Bruxton (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)- A news organization is, indeed, mentioned as an example of a source that might post Youtube content that might be relevant to a WP article, but the guideline certainly doesn't say, "Only content from news organizations has the potential to be cited in a WP article." The citation is used to support the assertion of the date of origin of the attraction's current name, and refusing to accept a business's assertion of its own date of establishment, in the absence of controversy or conflicting published claims, seems excessively pedantic to me. As for whether it's needed, not at all, if you're aware of another published source that documents the same fact. The attraction's owners aren't notable, and there would be nothing to say about them beyond their names, which would add nothing to the article for any reader not already personally acquainted with them. Given how little the article would gain in context from the inclusion of a non-notable name, I incline in the direction of respecting the privacy of persons who aren't the subject of the article, as discussed at WP:LPNAME. The Boston Magazine piece looks like an excellent find, and should definitely be used to improve the article. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks @Bryanrutherford0:, our article does not say that this is privately owned until the end of the article I think it should be in the lead. The privacy of the owners is probably out the window when they have RS about them. I will await a new ALT or support for ALT0 and I will not edit war the YouTube source. I think if it can be replaced it should be. Two editors here have called it out as red. I am but one editor here and whatever I approve will get scrutinized by an admin queue promotor and then it will be subject to errors. Perhaps the nominator can return to add information and get a hook back on track? Bruxton (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- A news organization is, indeed, mentioned as an example of a source that might post Youtube content that might be relevant to a WP article, but the guideline certainly doesn't say, "Only content from news organizations has the potential to be cited in a WP article." The citation is used to support the assertion of the date of origin of the attraction's current name, and refusing to accept a business's assertion of its own date of establishment, in the absence of controversy or conflicting published claims, seems excessively pedantic to me. As for whether it's needed, not at all, if you're aware of another published source that documents the same fact. The attraction's owners aren't notable, and there would be nothing to say about them beyond their names, which would add nothing to the article for any reader not already personally acquainted with them. Given how little the article would gain in context from the inclusion of a non-notable name, I incline in the direction of respecting the privacy of persons who aren't the subject of the article, as discussed at WP:LPNAME. The Boston Magazine piece looks like an excellent find, and should definitely be used to improve the article. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Bryanrutherford0, AverageEstoniaEnthusiast, and David Eppstein: Bryanrutherford0 you have left out the most important part of WP:RSPYT where they give an example of a verified account that is acceptable
- From WP:RSPYT: "Content uploaded from a verified official account ... may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability." The content being cited comes from the management of the attraction, which would be an unreliable source for anything with promotional tendencies, but I think it can be accepted for something as neutral as when the attraction got its current name. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I do agree with Bryan Rutherford that YT is an acceptable source in this case, but I did find an alternate to keep folks happy.
I agree with Bruxton that the lede should indicate the site is privately owned, so I edited as such.
I agree with Bryan Rutherford that the inclusion of a list of owners is both unneccesary and undesirable.
Crescent77 (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you @Crescent77: I appreciate your efforts and thank you for the opinion. I think the ownership is is more about adding the timeline of ownership, and maybe the 2018 price, 725k. Also these articles list property amenities like a gift shop and barn which is more than 225 years old, which are not in the article. 1, 2. It is about the article being complete (D7). ATM, we are giving the article the appearance that this is some geology museum and not a private business. So that is where my confusion came in. When I first read the article this seemed like a park, not a private business. Even now it also uses a museum infobox. It calls the area a "Geology museum" in the infobox, but Geology museum is not mentioned or referenced in our article. The owners make no such claim, they simply call the place a "Tourist Attraction". The article is also listed in three museum categories. But Museum is not mentioned or referenced at all in our article. If this is a museum or geology museum, that should be made clear in the article. Bruxton (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Bryanrutherford0, AverageEstoniaEnthusiast, and Crescent77: The nomination has been stalled just shy of three weeks without action. The unaddressed issue is outlined above and I am wondering if anyone plans edit the article so that the nomination can proceed. This is strictly a tourist attraction but the article is in three museum categories- those should be removed. I see that "Geology museum" has been removed from the infobox so that is one step. Our article probably should also use the "attraction" Template:Infobox attraction and not the museum one. Our article should make it clear that this is not a museum and it is a tourist attraction. Bruxton (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Bruxton, I'm wearing my editor hat and not my DYK hat, so this is not a re-review. That said, I made the changes mentioned above. AEE already implemented the infobox fix, and I fixed the cats and moved the YouTube video to the EL section. I don't think there's anything left that suggests this is a museum. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers: thank you much, please review - I think all they need is a hook that is in the article. Bruxton (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- ALT0 has been edited since the first reviewers looked at it, and I think it's supported now. We could also do:
- ALT1: ... that there is a "desert" in Maine?
- as a final slot hook maybe? The hookiness does depend on basic reader awareness of Maine climate/geography though.
- ALT2 ... that a farm was treated so poorly that it turned into the Desert of Maine?
- ALT1: ... that there is a "desert" in Maine?
- Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- @AverageEstoniaEnthusiast and Crescent77: Checking if you like either of these. Bruxton (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The nominator has approved ALT1 here. Thank you @Firefangledfeathers: Bruxton (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @AverageEstoniaEnthusiast and Crescent77: Checking if you like either of these. Bruxton (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- ALT0 has been edited since the first reviewers looked at it, and I think it's supported now. We could also do:
- @Firefangledfeathers: thank you much, please review - I think all they need is a hook that is in the article. Bruxton (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Bruxton, I'm wearing my editor hat and not my DYK hat, so this is not a re-review. That said, I made the changes mentioned above. AEE already implemented the infobox fix, and I fixed the cats and moved the YouTube video to the EL section. I don't think there's anything left that suggests this is a museum. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Bryanrutherford0, AverageEstoniaEnthusiast, and Crescent77: The nomination has been stalled just shy of three weeks without action. The unaddressed issue is outlined above and I am wondering if anyone plans edit the article so that the nomination can proceed. This is strictly a tourist attraction but the article is in three museum categories- those should be removed. I see that "Geology museum" has been removed from the infobox so that is one step. Our article probably should also use the "attraction" Template:Infobox attraction and not the museum one. Our article should make it clear that this is not a museum and it is a tourist attraction. Bruxton (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
