Template:Did you know nominations/Chongming Island

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 Allen3 ^talk 23:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Chongming Island

(

)

~~... that almost all of Wikipedia's maps of Shanghai (pictured) are wrong since they don't display the pene-exclaves of Jiangsu on the northern shore of Chongming Island?~~

ALTa:... that Wikipedia didn't have an article on Chongming, the 2nd-largest island in the People's Republic of China, before this one?

But seriously:

... that Chongming Island doubled in size between the 1950s and the present day?

ALT1:... that the unification of over 30 separate shoals in the Yangtze River formed Shanghai's Chongming Island in 1681?
ALT2:... that reclamation projects and natural deposition have doubled the size of Chongming Island in northern Shanghai since the founding of the People's Republic of China, making it the country's second-largest island?
ALT3:... that Shanghai's Chongming Island has grown so quickly during the 20th Century that it has absorbed separate islands from neighboring Jiangsu Province, creating two pene-exclaves on its northern shore?
ALT4:... that a national cricket fighting tournament is held annually on Chongming Island?
ALT5:... the much-touted Dongtan ecocity on Chongming Island in northern Shanghai has been on hiatus since the 2006 ouster of Shanghai mayor Chen Liangyu?
Reviewed: ~~Gimme a minute...~~ Well, I tried initiating the consensus on Italian cruisers and got put on trial for my trouble, if that counts... ~~If I'm not blocked, will try to do sth productive as well... =P~~ Liu Cigui.

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self nominated at 04:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC).

Good work expanding the former redirect. Article meets most criteria, but several paragraphs need referencing, under Geography, Government, Infrastructure, etc. -Zanhe (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words.

The unsourced sections have separate causes. All specific, contestable claims in the #Geography section are sourced: particularly the island's area, which is constantly expanding and therefore completely different in older sources. The #Location section of that article can be verified by a map and sourcing is needless; it might be done thoroughly enough by the EoS entry or they might have omitted some particulars. The #Enclave section of that article is (mostly) sourced at the corresponding (linked) articles. The specific names of the #Government section can be verified (somewhere) on the linked official site. Other areas—such as #History—have information translated from the linked Baidu Baike &c. articles... they're probably not off and the information can be kept pending some info to the contrary but at the same time they're not RS that we should be citing.

More to the point, though, none of that has anything to do with the hooks, all of which are sourced. (I'll strike ALT3 as solely sourced to a Chinese-language site & close to the hook I'm using for the enclaves' own DYK nomination.) I'll take this opportunity to object to the idea (not particular to this review: I've seen others start in on it as well) that DYK involves passing GA criteria: If you really feel that it is necessary to DYK that no section include any unsourced fact, I can completely delete all of those sections of the article and still have enough left to pass... then restore it after passing... but hopefully you realize that's nuts and the requirement is that we're not lying, we're not biased, and the hook itself is sourced.

Obviously, the #Geography and #Infrastructure sections have no issues (unless the bridge to Haimen just got finished); presumably, your Chinese or Googlefu is good enough to check the names of the townships if they concern you; are there any statements or areas that seem legitimately sketchy? (See this conversation for an example of what I'm talking about, where due diligence requires not just AGF from the author about a major point in his article.) — LlywelynII 04:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but WP:DYKSG#D2 requires every paragraph have at least one inline citation, not just the hook fact. I've been directly involved in 300 reviews, both as reviewer and as nominator, and have never seen this rule relaxed. If certain content is sourced at linked articles, it should be easy enough to copy the sources over. We as editors should not shift the burden of locating the sources to the readers. If you can't find any source to support the content, then it probably should be deleted or commented out. -Zanhe (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but WP:DYKSG#D2 does not actually say that and you should review it. Love your work to pieces but (as mentioned above) anyone holding up hooks over this needs to reread the actual policy (which in the case of D2 involves the phrases general rule and rule of thumb, not mandatory and at least), along with WP:IAR, WP:FATRAT, and WP:PRESERVE. When I get a minute, I'll blank those sections or "source" them to Baidu Baike for you; but there is nothing here that actually violates WP:CANTFIX or justifies the way you're processing this. (Again, if there are specific facts or points that seem dubious, by all means bring in this policy and get people to take care of them. As above, don't think that's an issue here.) — LlywelynII 13:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but the "rule of thumb" is almost always interpreted as at least one ref per paragraph (long paragraphs obviously need more). I'd like to see this article on the main page as much as you do, but even if I passed it as is, it would surely be rejected by the promoter or the administrator. See Yoninah's most recent rejection of this review, for example. If you still don't believe me, feel free to ask on WT:DYK or request a second opinion.
Finding reliable sources (not wiki-like sites such as Baidu Baike) shouldn't be so difficult either. See this this and this, for example. I'd add them to the article myself if I had more time, but I'm a bit occupied with other stuff at the moment. -Zanhe (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem with needing a new review, though I'm sure you're well intentioned and are welcome to count that towards your new hooks. That rule can't actually be enforced in a manner so divergent from its actual wording (especially for a process where it would automatically pass if I simply made up something offline or in Chinese) and, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, that rule can't actually be enforced in a manner that so clearly violates WP:PRESERVE. Again, if anything actually is suspect, I'm more than willing to go find out but imagining that blanking sections of decent info is an improvement beggars belief. — LlywelynII 13:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I don't think anything actually needs to be blanked, as I'm confident sources are available to support them. Since it's been quite a few days already, I posted a thread on WT:DYK to solicit fresh opinions. -Zanhe (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

New reviewer needed, as above, although the article now includes one cite per paragraph per the lack of consensus in the Talk area. — LlywelynII 02:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

No need for new reviewer now that you've addressed my concern. Article is new enough, long enough, neutral, and now well referenced. QPQ done. No copyvio detected. The main hook and ALT4 (which I've shortened) are the most interesting and verified with inline references. Good to go. -Zanhe (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)