Template:Did you know nominations/Angel of the Winds Casino Resort

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Angel of the Winds Casino Resort edit

(

)

~~... that construction of the Angel of the Winds Casino Resort required the demolition of 30 homes owned by Stillaguamish Tribe members? Source: The Seattle Times)~~

Reviewed: Australian immigration detention facilities

Created by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 04:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC).

size and age passed, written neutrally, no copyvio detected. Regarding the hook, the article says the plan was to demolish 30 homes but does not specify that that happened...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Also not particularly interesting. What is the hook here? That the building, its parking lot, and the grounds cover the space equivalent to thirty homes? Uh... so what? If there's an angle here where greedy white corporate types screwed over the poor natives, well, that's to be expected and not terribly interesting but it's worth noting; you still need to clarify that, though, since "Angel of the Winds" on native land sounds like it's just a reservation itself making life better for the tribe as a whole.

Surely there's something actually interesting about the project, though, right? — LlywelynII 13:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

COMMENT: Agreed on not DYK-worthy. The tribe built a casino on land it owned, later enlarged, later added a hotel. Right now, the article about the casino is twice as large as the article about the Stillaguamish Tribe. If anything, merge the casino article into the tribe article and abandon the DYK. David notMD (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The tribe article can be expanded separately, but it doesn't need to revolve around the casino. I will work on expanding both articles and proposing a new DYK hook over the next few days (priority going to the 2017 Washington train derailment right now). Sounder Bruce 20:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

As it is, I find it pretty interesting. "Interesting" is subjective; there's a reason it is not one of the eligibility criteria. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"Interesting to a broad audience" explicitly is one of the eligibility criteria. Two editors having stopping by really does suggest that the nominator can do a little better. It's fine though: Mr Bruce seems aware of the issue and is looking at something else to talk about. I'm sure it'll be fine. There's no reason to talk about merging here; even if it gets traction on the articles' talk pages, there's no reason to get in the way of a hardworking editor getting more eyes on his work and getting a DYK credit. — LlywelynII 07:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: I have a new hook that should be more interesting, based on an article I found:

ALT1: ... that the Angel of the Winds Casino was designed as a temporary building with modular elements so it could be sold in pieces? Sounder Bruce 03:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

promising. sourced. Maybe adding "so it could be sold in pieces"? or something similar? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: Done. Sounder Bruce 06:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: yikes...given I recommended the addition to your hook I guess I can't very well pass it now. Ummm, someone? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Was it originally designed as a temporary building or originally built as a temporary building? David notMD (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Either way, designed works. Hook passes, but

still needs a QPQ. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Forgot that I had already reviewed a QPQ that might count, which I have added above. Sounder Bruce 05:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe that makes this good to go. Note: I've taken the liberty of removing "originally" from ALT1, as it removes the ambiguiuty that David notMD mentioned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)