Template:Did you know nominations/Sutton High Street

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion 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 — Maile (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sutton High Street, National Express route A3[edit]

  • Comment: I wrote the Sutton High Street article, with A P Monblat taking most of the images on the page. I wrote the National Express route A3 article, with guidance from CourtneyBonnick.

Created by Launchballer (talk), A P Monblat (talk), CourtneyBonnick (talk). Nominated by Launchballer (talk) at 12:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC).

  • QPQ required. Supplementary guidelines H4 Where a hook has more than one new or expanded article in it, an article-for-article quid pro quo (QPQ) is required: one article reviewed for each bolded article in the hook. — Maile (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean QPQs required? There's two bolded articles.--Launchballer 22:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes, I believe this qualifies as a self-nom for you. And I think you have more than 5 DYKs now. What the above means is that where QPQ is required, on a multi-article hook, there needs to be a QPQ for each bolded article on a multi-article hook. So, two QPQs for this nomination. — Maile (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Por Amarte Así and Template:Did you know nominations/Journals of the First Fleet.--Launchballer 23:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that QPQs have been added. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The hook is unsatisfactory. It makes a strong claim for the street - that it is the only area with such services - but this claim does not seem to be supported by the source supplied. There are many other places with coach services to both airports, such as Victoria Coach Station, and these may be provided by the same operator - National Express. The claim therefore seems to depend upon a fine distinction between a coach service and an express bus service. This seems quite debatable and so we can't promote this without better support from sources.
This issue seems fatal to the idea of linking the two articles with the same hook. We might just say that the A3 runs along the high street but that seems too mundane. My impression is that the focus upon bus services is distorting the article about the high street as that article seems to give undue weight to bus services as compared with other forms of transport. Articles about streets and bus routes both attract hostile attention so I suggest that it might be more prudent to do them separately, making the most of their independent virtues. They could keep their qualifying date for DYK purposes, I suppose.
Andrew (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
What is wrong with:
ALT1: ... that the London Buses route X26 and the National Express route A3 both run through Sutton High Street, giving it bus access to both Heathrow and Gatwick Airports?
or even
ALT2: ... that Sutton High Street has access to Heathrow Airport via London Buses route X26, Gatwick Airport via National Express route A3 and Luton Airport via Thameslink?
--Launchballer 11:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The source doesn't support those hooks either as it just announces the A3 route and doesn't mention the X26. You'd need a source which makes something of the fact that both services run through the high street. Andrew (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
There isn't one that says that both serve the high street - one's a London bus and the other is a National Express bus - however citation #37 deals with the X26.--Launchballer 13:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg We now have some of the hostile attention which I warned of above. The DYK will need to go on hiatus while that is resolved but I'd expect the article to be kept. But I'm not content with the attempts to link the high street to the bus routes to the other airports. Without a source making this association, this seems to be improper synthesis. Andrew (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Who said that the National Express route A3 article had to remain on hold while the Sutton High Street article's at AfD? (Note: ALTA: National Express route A3. ALTS: Sutton High Street.)
ALTA1: ... that National Express route A3 duplicates the National Express route 025 from Mitcham to London Victoria? --Launchballer 10:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg ALTA1 is not supported by either article or SuttonGuardian source (the latter doesn't even include "Mitcham" in its text), and it's uninteresting. I'm frankly wondering about the notability of the A3 route, since the only secondary source covering the current A3 is SuttonGuardian, and it was published prior to the day the service commenced. The rest are either PDF timetables (primary sources) and information about former or other routes, which have nothing to do with whether A3 is notable. All the timetables do is establish that the route actually existed. (And the timetables currently show as bare URLs; they should have titles and notations that they are indeed PDF files.
The AfD on Sutton High Street has closed as "Keep", but further review here depends on the article becoming stable; at the moment, it's not, though things could die down quickly. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
There must be something more interesting and quirky about a street of this age than a poxy bloody bus route. When I get time I will condense the bus directory down to two or tree lines which is all that is needed. A lot of poor quality images will also be taken out to avoid the current clutter and some issues around advertising and promotion addressed. The page will then look more like an encyclopedia article and less like a directory.--Charles (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
BlueMoonset: Okay, looks like things aren't going to die down anytime soon.
Charlesdrakew: You clearly haven't read the whole nomination - per Andrew Davidson's comment, I'm splitting the two bolded hooks up. Me and Davey2010 are in agreement that what is there regarding bus routes is quite acceptable. If you think otherwise, put in a request for comment.--Launchballer 11:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Launchballer, I posted that ALTA1 was not supported almost two weeks ago, and you haven't done anything to address that issue. If you want to pursue the A3 nomination separately, you have to be active in doing so. This nomination is in imminent danger of being closed as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
ALTA1 is supported by the article and referenced by source six.--Launchballer 23:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I also said ALTA1 was not interesting back then, and struck it. There needs to be an interesting, supported hook. Further, I've just realized that there is significant close paraphrasing involving the suttonguardian source (FN4) that will need to be addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The notability concerns I expressed earlier on National Express route A3 have now been formalized: I've started an AfD. The nomination will be on hold until the AfD has been closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Who says the whole nomination has to be put on hold while the A3 route is at AfD?
ALTS1: ... that Sutton High Street contains the first UK branch of All Bar One?--Launchballer 19:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
That seems rather dull to me, when a hook like this is possible:
  • ALTS2: ... that Sutton High Street is the site of the pub where the Rolling Stones were "discovered" by a promoter in 1963? --Orlady (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, but I'd prefer something like this:
ALTS3: ... that the Rolling Stones were discovered in a pub on Sutton High Street?--Launchballer 10:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I like this idea, and think Orlady's form of words is great as it is. --A P Monblat (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: National Express route A3 has been deleted. I have struck the hooks that included it and removed the DYKmake credits; only the Sutton High Street hooks should be considered. I've struck ALTS1 because it is, indeed, dull.
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed for Sutton High Street article (it never has been given a complete DYK criteria review), including the two remaining ALTS hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I've incorporated three of the suggested references - I can't see the contents of the fourth reference. I consider ALTS4 boring, therefore suggesting the following:
ALTS5: ... that half the Rolling Stones were inaugurated as members in a pub on Sutton High Street?--Launchballer 21:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg Date, length and expansion (given moved to mainspace on 6th and nominated on the 12th) All OK. Personally I think it does not reflect well that it has taken this long to get this passed. I would suggest a hook like "that The Rolling Stones were found in a pub on Sutton High Street? but I don't think that we want to keep delaying this. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC) ·

  • Symbol question.svg The C of E, which of the ALT hooks are you approving, and which ones are not approved? When you review a nomination with more than one hook, you need to specify which hooks are okay. (It isn't necessary to express a preference, but you do need to be explicit about valid and not valid.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Additional comment: I see two bare URLs that need to be given titles per DYK rules (I think they're bus route maps of some sort), and the review doesn't mention the two other "Within Policy" criteria, neutrality and close paraphrasing checks. Please take care of these as well. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed the two 'bare' URLs, though I'm not in agreement that they are bare - that is the page title as specified in the page's HTML.--Launchballer 15:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
There are problems with talking about "half" the band. I'd prefer to go back to the earlier idea, but slightly modified to make it watertight: the word "spotted" is, I think, a little less strong than "discovered" and is therefore justified, especially with the additional sources which Orlady has found. I therefore think we should say:
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Still need a reviewer who will do neutrality and close paraphrasing checks, and also specify which active ALTS hooks (2 through 6) are okay to use and which are not. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol question.svg - QPQ done. In addition to "Date, length and expansion" checks by the C of E, also read through article and didn't notice any POV issue. Article inline cited throughout though there are a few statements that still require citation. All paragraphs have at least one citation. Did a spot check for close paraphrasing. Initially noticed two instances of copyvio. Copyedited one, deleted the other. Then I decided to check more urls and found quite a few other instances. This statement "from london to brighton and two large coaching inns the cock and the greyhound served passing travellers" for instance, too closely reflects the content here. As does "run the cycle business from the same", among others. As it relates to the suggested alts, I struck ALTS2 and ALTS3 as they are not verified by sources: the pub "helped the Rolling Stones on their road to fame". Also striking ALTS6 because the source [18] is offline and therefore cannot be verified. The other source [19] from a site called The Shady Old Lady appears shady. Given the issues surrounding this DYK marathon I don't want to stir up another set of issues. Did the same for ALTS4 as the information in that hook is not expressed in the article. ALTS5 is the most workable and would be my choice once approved. I really came in here to get this hook approved but the copyvio issues are too many to ignore. Disappointed that these checks weren't done with all the back and forth over alts. EagerToddler39 (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Um, I unstruck ALT6 after adding two sources (two of the four that noted above) to the article. (I was hoping that the proponent of the nom would have added the sources.) Meanwhile, I struck ALT5 because it's not at all clear that 2 members were "half" of the band and because at least one source I found indicates that Watts joined the Stones at Gomelsky's club. --Orlady (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with everything Orlady says, and I thank Orlady for adding the further sources to the article. I am not an experienced Wikipedian (as yet!), but can this DYK now be taken forward to publication by those who are?--A P Monblat (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Have the copyvio issues been addressed. I indicated that I didn't check every single source because I was meeting too many issues. I notice efforts were made to copyedit only those statements I mentioned in my review. What about "a judicial review a high court judge gave" / "largely through graduate recruitment" / "the green light " duplicated from here? or ""state-of-the-art" office building" from here or "backed by a Government inspector at an appeal" / "go down the route of "permitted development"" duplicated from here or "186 apartments, a supermarket, shops, restaurants and a public plaza" from here? ... among several others. It is precisely because too much focus was placed on the hooks and little attention paid to the article why this is being held up further. Please cleanup the article so that it is up to scratch and we'll finalize the hook soon enough. EagerToddler39 (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed the copyvios notified of.--Launchballer 09:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Further improvement/clean up has been done by me and others. - A P Monblat (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I notice the few improvements made but there is still work to be done. At least one of the close paraphrases I spotted and highlighted was not addressed. I also indicated that there are others that I did not mention because there were too many. A more thorough copyedit is needed. What about "backed by a Government inspector at an appeal"? EagerToddler39 (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I have fixed all the copyvios that I could find; I have also taken the opportunity to make some minor drafting tweaks, which I hope are improvements. I've added citations as requested regarding the range of restaurants. - A P Monblat (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)