Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Sarlacc's Pit cave

< Template:Did you know nominations
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) 05:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Wells Gray Park Cave discovery

edit
(
)
Cave entrance
Cave entrance
  • ... that the largest striped karst cave ever found has been nicknamed Sarlacc's Pit (pictured)? Source: "The cave is the largest known of its type, a variety of "striped karst," which is marble interspersed with other types of ancient ocean rock, she said." and "The entrance to the cave, nicknamed 'Sarlacc's Pit' by the helicopter crew who discovered it, is seen in an undated handout photo." (both sentences from CBC article)
    • ALT1:... that no one will know until 2020 whether the newly discovered Sarlacc's Pit cave (pictured) is actually the largest cave in Canada? Source: "The exact depth and size of the cave has not been determined... future exploration of the cave is being considered in consultation with BC Parks, and that a team is likely to be fielded in 2020. (from Canadian Geographic article) and "A newly discovered cave in a remote valley in British Columbia might be the country's largest." (from CBC article)

Created by 70.67.193.176 (talk). Nominated at 17:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC).

  • - Thanks for creating this nomination and your work on the article! Looking at it for DYK, there a number of things that have to be done in order for it to be ready to run on the main page. First, there are a few sections that are without any/adequate citations. Also, there are a few tags expressing concerns over the article's tone, general phrasing, among other things that need to be resolved. Please let us know if you have any questions or would like us to take a look at any changes. Thanks again, Mifter Public (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Mifter Public. Thank you for the note. I was surprised to see your comment about unreferenced sections since I had put a reference on each sentence. But then even more surprised to see the article! People have added a TON of stuff to it since I nominated it. I am overwhelmed and not sure what to do or where to start. Some questions for you:
  • The article name was changed, does that make it ineligible for DYK now?
  • Do all the additions now make it ineligible, or is there anything that can be done? I do not want to erase anyone else's work, obviously, and I think it's cool so much has been added. But I have no idea where the other people got their information from. What would you suggest?
  • I think I could fix the tone tag through copyediting. But how would I fix the tag about a contributor with a conflict of interest? Whoever that contributor is, it is not me, and I suppose that tag has to stay there as long as they have contributed content to the article.
  • Thanks very much for your advice. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
    Here's what you need to do; comprehensively and heartlessly remove anything that can't be cited or smacks of POV. It's great that the original investigators are taking an interest, we welcome them here, but if the information has not yet been published in a reliable source then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia (see discussion on article talk page). You can remove the maintenance templates yourself when the issues have been fixed. The article will not get past a DYK review while they are still in place, or the issues have not been fixed. This is not a full review, there is little point doing that while the article has major problems.
    On the name change issue, that may need to be undone, although it probably doesn't affect DYK. Wikipedia article names should be the common name found in sources, regardless of any "official" name. In any case, as I understand it, the feature does not yet have an official name. You need to advise what your sources are calling it and then change the name accordingly (see Wikipedia:Requested moves). SpinningSpark 19:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much Spinningspark. I am seeing first if the other contributor will work with me, if not I will carry on with your advice without them. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I regret the spanner in the works, and I admit to knowing nothing about caves; however, "no one will know until 2020 whether the newly discovered Sarlacc's Pit cave is actually the largest cave in Canada" sounds fishy to me. They/we may not know until 2020 whether this cave is the largest among those known either now in 2019 or at the time (2020), but it's imaginable that come 2028 or whenever, a huge cave will be discovered. Therefore I tentatively suggest the clunky-sounding "no one will know until 2020 whether the newly discovered Sarlacc's Pit cave is actually the largest known cave in Canada". (There are ways to avoid the "know ... known" repetition, e.g. "no one will be sure".) -- Hoary (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This has been stuck for almost a month with no updates: if this cannot move forward soon, this will be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Hello, Blue Moonset alerted me to your message. Update is that I have not heard from the person who wrote the merged article. When is the deadline for me to change the article? Thank you, 70.67.193.176 (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
As this nomination has been open since December and there's been little progress, we'd probably give at most another week to fix the issues. This has gone on for too long already: it's pretty much now or never. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll be back before April 1.70.67.193.176 (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello Mifter,SpinningSpark,Hoary,Narutolovehinata5. The unsourced material has been removed. The article is no longer tagged. A "requested move" has been put into motion to move the article to the name reflected in the sources (though you said this won't affect DYK). Hope you can now review the article. Thanks, 70.67.193.176 (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
70.67.193.176, you pinged me (among others). Regardless of any opinion I might have about this candidate, I'm not going to review it. Reasons: (i) I'm very unfamiliar with the DYK process. (My only contribution above was to point out that the implication in "ALT1" that in 2020 people will know whether X is the largest example of Y is strange, as all they'll know is whether X is the largest known example of Y. My pointing this out doesn't seem to have had any effect. Either I've misunderstood something or "ALT1" remains unsatisfactory.) (ii) I know squat about geology, I'm embarrassed to admit. (iii) I know squat about Canadian and other custodianship of natural resources, landmarks, etc. So for example a note tells the reader "The official name of the cave has not yet been determined as of December 2018"; I'd like to see if I could update that to "April 2019", but I don't know what list(s) of "official names" I might check. ¶ That said, I wish this candidate well; the subject matter certainly sounds like a humongous (and inhospitable) hole, eminently worth the attention of Wikipedia browsers. -- Hoary (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Hoary, I'm not really up on the process either, but I'm sure no one is obligated to review. I mentioned you all as people who had expressed interest, that's all, not meaning to push. My understanding was that when the reviewer chooses a hook they decide between the existing ones which is where your comment will be helpful and they can choose your proposed alternative wording, so of course it is useful feedback. Also thanks for your comment about the "note" - I want to delete it for the reasons you say but have not found where it is so I can do that grrr. I will if I can find it in the code. And thank you for the well wishes. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

this canadiangeographic.ca page, this globalnews.ca page, this bbc.com page and this cbc.ca page agree that the larger dimension of the entrance (whether it's called "width" or "length") is a hundred metres. The relevant manuals of style may have had this written as "100 metres", but calling it "330 feet" gives it bogus precision, I suspect. To me (admittedly a cave ignoramus) a cave with an entrance a hundred metres long (or wide) sounds much more impressive than a cave that may or may not be the largest known in Canada. And therefore:

I think it's short, it's vivid, and that it will have people wanting to know where it is and to gawp at the (fully legit, not merely "fair use") photos. -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Hoary. Since it is a Canadian article would be happy to have it in metres only, but I guess the feet conversion is wikipedia style. If people who use feet find them too precise, is there another imperial measurement they can use instead? Like yards? Thanks also for the article edit, and thanks also to BlueMoonset for finding and removing the note. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Full review needed now that previous issues have been addressed, since article is very different from when it was previously reviewed. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 Doing... starting a full review for this nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - Pending
  • Interesting: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article was moved to the mainspace on December 3, and nominated the next day. Length and sourcing are now adequate. Tone of the article is now neutral. I detected no plagiarism issues, despite the Earwig tool highlighting quora.com, which appears to have copied Wikipedia. A review for QPQ has been completed. There are photos used in the article which are properly licensed and eligible for display on the front page. I recommend adding to this nomination. If not, I can go ahead with the current non-photo hooks. It also appears that there are several editors who added substantial information to the article, but are not given a writing credit, such as AngusWOOF, Hadron137, and Magmawoman. Are there are concerns regarding adding these writing credits? Flibirigit (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Flibirigit, thank you for the review. I do not know anything about photo licensing but if you have determined that the photo can be added to the hook you choose, then yes please, that sounds great. I did not know that articles have writing credits so sorry for leaving that out - please let me know where the credits are and how to fix them. Thanks again. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I have added the photo to the nomination, and added the writing credits. I will have a more detailed look at the hooks a bit later today. Flibirigit (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
ALT0 has been struck since it is not completely true, not similarly mentioned in the article, and very likely to be challenged at WP:ERRORS. ALT1 has also been struck since it is very speculative, awkwardly worded, and is not similarly mentioned in the article. ALT2 is properly cited as per here and other sites, and I agree with Hoary on it being hooky. I'm willing to accept other suggested hooks, but I think it's best to move forward on ALT2. Flibirigit (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Approving ALT2 as per above. Flibirigit (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Flibirigit. Can you please work the nickname Sarlacc's Pit into the hook? It is cited and I think the most clickable fact in the article. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I think the hook works best without any name actually. I note that the article's name is still under discussion as well. I will leave it up to the person who promotes the article from the approved nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Returned from prep until page name discussion is concluded. Yoninah (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see why that's necessary. The DYK talk request for a hook change was made because the nominator and the approver disagreed about whether the nickname "Sarlacc's Pit" should be included in the hook itself, and I don't see that as being solved by any article rename, since the whole point is that Sarlacc is unofficial, and will remain so even if the article is renamed to be more generic (basically a name by location). The discussion is around exact form of the generic name, so far as I can see; it seems pretty clear that the consensus is that absent an official name, the article is going to start with "Wells Gray", the park wherein it was found—it's just a matter of finding the exact best title under the circumstances. However, if 70.67.193.176 wants a hook with the Sarlacc name in it, I suggest that they propose one right away, since ALT2 is the only approved hook, and that can't just be changed by a promoter. (Or at least it shouldn't be.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I am open to other hooks being suggested, but I still approve of ALT2. Flibirigit (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, here are the two ways to include it that I suggested on the talk page. Thank you!70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
ALT3 ... that a newly discovered cave nicknamed Sarlacc's Pit has an entrance 100 metres (330 ft) long?
ALT4 ... that a cave discovered in 2018, nicknamed Sarlacc's Pit, has an entrance 100 metres (330 ft) long?
  • Hi, I don't think adding the nickname improves the hook in any way. In fact, you're basically telling the reader everything they need to know, so they won't have to click on the article. ALT2 is a better hook. Yoninah (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Yoninah. What I don't understand about your comment is that the first ALT2 doesn't give any hint that the cave has an interesting name, so even if the name of the cave is "everything they need to know", there is no incentive for the reader to click because they don't have a reason to believe they need to know anything about the name. It seems to me that the first ALT2 will only attract people who are interested in caves, while when the nickname is added the hook will appeal to people who are interested in caves plus people who are interested in Star Wars plus people who want to know why a cave would have a name like that, so the appeal is much broader. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh. I had no idea it refers to Star Wars. Well, if you think the name will draw people in, then write:
  • ALT2a: ... that the entrance to the recently-discovered Sarlacc's Pit is 100 m (330 ft) long? Yoninah (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I have renumbered the hooks to be ALT3 and ALT4, since numbers should not be duplicated. Could you both clarify which hooks you are referring to. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Yoninah, ALT2a is fine by me. Thanks Flibirigit, when I mentioned first ALT2 I meant the one that is now called ALT2 and when I mentioned the hooks with the nicknames added I meant the ones that you have renamed ALT3 and ALT4. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Approving ALT2 and AL2a. I'm also suggesting ALT5 below: Flibirigit (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
ALT5 ... that a newly discovered cave is proposed to be named after a Star Wars character?
Thanks, that one works too if you will change "is proposed to be named" to "has been temporarily named" to match what the sources say. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Another reviewer besides me or the original nominator, is requested to check ALT5. Flibirigit (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I have no comment on the difference in meaning between "is proposed to be named" and "has been temporarily named"; however, the wording of the former sounds slightly awkward to me. If (and only if) it's thought to be better, in terms of its meaning, than the latter, then how about ALT5a"... that there's a proposal to name a newly discovered cave after a Star Wars character?"? Incidentally, note how I've moved "a" into the link text at the end: this way, the reader may expect something about the particular character, and not just some list of characters. -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Hoary! There is no proposal to permanently name the cave Sarlacc's Pit, by my reading of the sources, but perhaps I am not understanding them right and Fliribirgit could clarify his/her reading. I will quote them below. I do like all the rest of ALT 5a. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "The people who first spotted the cave from the helicopter named it Sarlacc's Pit, because of its similarity to the lair of the sarlacc, a creature from Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. A formal naming of the cave will happen after consultations with First Nations, she said."[1]
  • "Bevan Ernst, a regional caribou biologist with the ministry, called it “Sarlaac Pit” (a reference to a subterranean creature that made a brief appearance in the film Return of the Jedi). Pollack added that the name Ernst gave the pit is unofficial and temporary. BC Parks is consulting with local First Nations to determine whether a traditional Indigenous name for the cave exists."[2]
  • "Government biologist Bevan Ernst, who was on the caribou survey team, unofficially dubbed the discovery "Sarlacc's Pit" because it looked to him a bit like the lair of a Sarlacc, a fictional creature from the planet Tatooine featured in Star Wars."[3]
  • "The cave has not been officially named yet, and Hickson said the province is consulting with local First Nations to see if the cave has a place in their historical knowledge. That hasn’t stopped it from picking up an informal name, though, with one member of the initial helicopter team to spot it likening it to the monster den that Luke Skywalker is to be fed into in the movie Return of the Jedi."[4]
I chose the wording in the hook since until the name becomes official, it is a proposal. However, if 70.67.193.176 would like to propose a variant of ALT5 and ALT5a, I am willing to consider it, and keep moving this forward. Flibirigit (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
ALT5b ... that a newly discovered cave has been temporarily named after a Star Wars character? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
approving ALT5b as the best of the suggested hooks. It is properly cited and mentioned in the article as well. Flibirigit (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Sarlacc%27s_Pit_cave&oldid=893881143"