Template:Did you know nominations/El Ojo
- 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 19:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
El Ojo
.jpg)
El Ojo island
- ... that El Ojo (pictured) is a floating island that rotates keeping it almost perfectly circular? Source: https://archaeology-world.com/this-circular-island-in-argentina-not-only-floats-but-also-rotates-constantly/
- ALT1: ... that El Ojo is an almost perfectly circular rotating floating island in the Paraná Delta? Source: https://archaeology-world.com/this-circular-island-in-argentina-not-only-floats-but-also-rotates-constantly/
- Reviewed:
Created by Osarius (talk). Self-nominated at 20:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/El Ojo; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
@Osarius: I can do a more in-depth review later, but currently the article seems to have only 576 bytes of readable prose size. It needs 1,500 bytes of prose to be eligible for DYK. Would you be able to expand it to 1,500 characters? Epicgenius (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Epicgenius:, I have expanded the article to meet and exceed the size criteria. Thanks, Osarius 08:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Checking the page it now meets the size requirement, DYKcheck reports, "1704 characters (284 words) readable prose size". I've also looked at the sources and they seem credible. It is good enough as it is, but it could use some more of the rational explanation information from the sources. MtBotany (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Osarius and MtBotany: I'm afraid that the article is largely based off of unreliable sources. Do any of these institutions have editorial control or a reputation for fact-checking? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- As an independent observer, looking at the subject and the sources, I think we need to distinguish between the rotating island as a physical phenomenon and the theories that explain its existence and behavior. The quality or reliability of the sources should be proportional to the claims they are making; extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In this case the island itself appears on Google Earth with the historical view slider, so its existence and behavior over time can be verified by the reader. The various explanations to its existence and behavior, ranging from the reasonable to the ludicrous, can be weighed by the reader. The sources that are currently in the article present this information without passing judgment or emphasizing a particular point of view, so even though none of those sources is a highly acclaimed academic source or a big publishing house with lots of vetting layers, such quality is not really needed in this case. So in my opinion the sources provided are sufficient to meet WP:RS for this article and also for WP:DYK. Crum375 (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'd have to disagree, Crum375. Geology and geography are serious business, and we don't let any crackpot with a blog assess on Wikipedia why a landmass acts the way it does. We certainly don't treat them as authorities on the scientific consensus about the place – pretty much the entirety of the History section is undue weight, even more so if the article actually followed the sourcing in equivocating on implausible conspiracy theories. Were it not for the fact that it seems to be a WP:GEOLAND pass, I'd be taking the article to AfD. As it stands, I think it should be stubbed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron, I've added a few more sources that are not "crackpot", although some mention the crackpot views alongside the mainstream. If you have any specific source or text in the article you feel is unacceptable for any reason, point it out. But stubbing this article completely (it's already pretty short), does not make sense given the latest sources. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hmm, not sure. The new sources are a combination of blogs and other sites with either no evidence or a poor reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight; i.e. more of the same. As it turns out, this actually isn't covered by WP:GEOLAND, so I've put it up for deletion. This can go forward if it survives that discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron, I did some further pruning, getting rid of lower quality sources. It would be helpful if you could voice your concerns about specific sources rather than the broad brush dismissal. The island is clearly notable, and its existence over time (since 2003) is not in question given the Google Earth historical slider. There are also many diverse sources. There is no mention of pseudoscience or paranormal in the article, although some sources mention it (not surprising since the island seems artificial or weird at first glance). The island is covered by WP:GEOLAND#Natural_features (since it has known sources), so let's find the best sources and see what else is needed for notability in your view. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- All righty, then, I'm happy to get into specifics.
- Mybestplace.com, odditycentral.com, and earthlymission.com are group blogs, with no evidence of editorial oversight or fact-checking. The first two of those give credence to unfounded conspiracy theories about the nature of the phenomenon.
- Ripley's Believe it Or Not is not news, it is an entertainment company that engages in sensationalist story-telling, and it has no evidence of editorial oversight or fact-checking. It gives credence to unfounded conspiracy theories about the nature of the phenomenon.
- Gearthblog.com is a group blog run by three people, so editorial oversight or fact-checking isn't really possible (although, to its credit, it doesn't equivocate on conspiracy theories).
- The Daily Express and The Daily Mail are considered generally unreliable and deprecated, respectively, per WP:RSP – and funnily enough, they engage in the same conspiracy-theory equivocating that some of these blogs do.
- AccuWeather might actually be a marginally reliable source, but it's not a notability-conferring one.
- UNILAD is, according to its own marketing, primarily for "breaking news and relatable viral content" (i.e. not serious journalism about geological topics), and doesn't confer notability.
- Taken together, the sources to demonstrate notability really aren't there. The article couldn't consist of more than name, coordinates, maybe the basics about its geologic quirkiness. But it certainly doesn't pass WP:GEONATURAL's requirement, which says
This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article.
It doesn't confer inherent notability, unlike WP:GEOLAND. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)- Hi theleekycauldron, I've added some more sources, which seem more reliable. Some have actual interesting content that we can add in future. If you think these are sufficient for notability, we can remove some of the less reliable ones. What do you think? Crum375 (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- All righty, then, I'm happy to get into specifics.
- theleekycauldron, I did some further pruning, getting rid of lower quality sources. It would be helpful if you could voice your concerns about specific sources rather than the broad brush dismissal. The island is clearly notable, and its existence over time (since 2003) is not in question given the Google Earth historical slider. There are also many diverse sources. There is no mention of pseudoscience or paranormal in the article, although some sources mention it (not surprising since the island seems artificial or weird at first glance). The island is covered by WP:GEOLAND#Natural_features (since it has known sources), so let's find the best sources and see what else is needed for notability in your view. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hmm, not sure. The new sources are a combination of blogs and other sites with either no evidence or a poor reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight; i.e. more of the same. As it turns out, this actually isn't covered by WP:GEOLAND, so I've put it up for deletion. This can go forward if it survives that discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron, I've added a few more sources that are not "crackpot", although some mention the crackpot views alongside the mainstream. If you have any specific source or text in the article you feel is unacceptable for any reason, point it out. But stubbing this article completely (it's already pretty short), does not make sense given the latest sources. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'd have to disagree, Crum375. Geology and geography are serious business, and we don't let any crackpot with a blog assess on Wikipedia why a landmass acts the way it does. We certainly don't treat them as authorities on the scientific consensus about the place – pretty much the entirety of the History section is undue weight, even more so if the article actually followed the sourcing in equivocating on implausible conspiracy theories. Were it not for the fact that it seems to be a WP:GEOLAND pass, I'd be taking the article to AfD. As it stands, I think it should be stubbed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- As an independent observer, looking at the subject and the sources, I think we need to distinguish between the rotating island as a physical phenomenon and the theories that explain its existence and behavior. The quality or reliability of the sources should be proportional to the claims they are making; extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In this case the island itself appears on Google Earth with the historical view slider, so its existence and behavior over time can be verified by the reader. The various explanations to its existence and behavior, ranging from the reasonable to the ludicrous, can be weighed by the reader. The sources that are currently in the article present this information without passing judgment or emphasizing a particular point of view, so even though none of those sources is a highly acclaimed academic source or a big publishing house with lots of vetting layers, such quality is not really needed in this case. So in my opinion the sources provided are sufficient to meet WP:RS for this article and also for WP:DYK. Crum375 (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Osarius and MtBotany:
- Making it clear that the nom is on hold until the AFD finishes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: FYI the AfD is now closed. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Ready for a re-review. Courtesy pings: @Epicgenius, MtBotany, and Theleekycauldron: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
QPQ: 
I gave this a fresh review. The length and notability issues have been resolved. Suffers now from WP:OVERCITE but that's not a disqualifier. QPQ is not needed. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)