This is the current revision of this page, as edited by ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk | contribs) at 07:38, 20 April 2021 (Fixed the obsolete html tag Lint error). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 07:38, 20 April 2021 by ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk | contribs) (Fixed the obsolete html tag Lint error)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Carolwood Pacific Railroad
( )
The CPRR's Lilly Belle locomotive and caboose
- ...
that the Carolwood Pacific Railroad, a ridable miniature railroad run by Walt Disney in his backyard, included a tunnel underneath his wife Lillian's flower garden?Source: "Exclusive: The $90 Million Carolwood Estate Once Owned by Walt Disney" by Morgan Brennan- ALT1:... that the Carolwood Pacific Railroad was a ridable miniature railroad run by Walt Disney in his backyard? Source: "Exclusive: The $90 Million Carolwood Estate Once Owned by Walt Disney" by Morgan Brennan
Improved to Good Article status by Jackdude101 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC).
:*
Newly promoted to GA, article of required length, use of free images, cited and interesting hook. (QPQ not required as nominator had promoted 3 DYKs till now). RRD (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Hook was pulled from Queue 2 due to issues with the original hook, which has been struck. Jackdude101 has since proposed ALT1; new reviewer needed to carefully review it to be sure there are no issues. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: Is a new reviewer really needed in this case, given that the alternate hook is a shortened version of the original hook, presents no new information, and uses the same source? Is it okay to simply have the previous reviewer, @Royroydeb:, sign off on it? Jackdude101 22:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Jackdude101, given that Royroydeb missed the issues with the original hook, which meant that it was pulled, I think it would be best if someone else did the careful check of the new hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- However, based on Gatoclass's point, it appears that the issues around the hook have been addressed with recent additions to the article, provided Fram (who pulled it) agrees. So no need to bother Royroydeb in any event. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- I should probably state for the record that Gatoclass' slight change to the article to make it match the original hook more closely is compliant with the source above and I am okay with it. Jackdude101 00:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, you don't appear to have read the relevant thread at WT:DYK. The issue with the hook has already been addressed and TRM has agreed that it can be promoted. We only need Fram to endorse the change made in the article in order to restore the original hook to the queue, so I have unstruck it. Gatoclass (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Fram:, when you have a moment, please indicate here whether the change made to the article to better match the original hook is to your satisfaction so that the process can move forward. Jackdude101 16:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Let's see, Gatoclass changed the article with the edit summary " tweak to conform with DYK hook", without changing the off-line hook they presumably haven't read. That seems like rather atrocious behaviour. The hook should follow the article, not the article follow the hook they promoted. It's best to get some uninvolved editors in to check this again and look at how this has been dealt with, instead of letting Gatoclass continue to trample all normal editing rules to get what he wants. Fram (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Fram: The text of the related fact in the article, to conform with the hook, was changed from future tense to past tense. It's a minor change and no new information was added. If Gatoclass didn't make this change, I would have. Can we please separate the discussion about Gatoclass' actions from this DYK nomination so that it can move forward? I don't want my DYK nomination to stall because of a personal grievance. @The Rambling Man:, what are your thoughts on this? Jackdude101 19:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: The general consensus with this DYK is that other people not involved with it until now should review it. I pinged a couple of other users over the past few days and asked them to do so, but no one has responded. I propose that this DYK be moved back to WP:DYKN and strike the original review by Royroydeb above so that it can be reviewed again from the start. Once it becomes approved again, I suggest that the alternate hook be used on the main page, just because of the hornets nest that my original hook unintentionally stirred up. Jackdude101 02:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
New review needed to confirm recently added alternate hook. Jackdude101 21:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Since I cannot reload the original hook without Fram's consent without theoretically opening myself to a charge of wheel warring, I have verified the alt hook instead. I suggest this hook be given a lead spot to compensate the nominator Jackdude for the anxiety caused by this fracas. An image of a miniature railroad should make a nice change from the usual fare in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)