Template:Did you know nominations/Electron Hydroelectric Project
- 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: rejected by Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Under the circumstances, and with an inaccurate hook, I don't think we have any choice but to close the nomination as unsuccessful.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Electron Hydroelectric Project
[edit]
- ... that the railway on top of the wooden flume of the Electron Hydroelectric Project claims to be "the crookedest railway in the world"?
Created by NearEMPTiness (talk). Self nominated at 18:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC).
Article is new enough, long enough (barely) and uses in-line citations, but citation format needs to be improved -- better than bare url's but lacking basic information like publisher, dates, etc. These should really be improved before this could be promoted. More importantly, the hook fact doesn't appear to be accurate. The sources don't say that PSE makes any affirmative "claim" that the railroad is the "crookedest." There is just a bit of unreferenced, promotional fluff from PSE saying that it has been "called" the "crookedest." A google search of "crookedest railway" draws a myriad of hits, and the more reliable ones say it is the Mount Tamalpais and Muir Woods Railway that is commonly known as, or claimed to be, the crookedest. Image is ok. No QPQ required as threshold not yet passed. Cbl62 (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
After a second talk-page ping, the nominator replied there as follows: "I think the commments of the review are accurate, but I do not want to make changes to the article, due to other priorities." Under the circumstances, and with an inaccurate hook, I don't think we have any choice but to close the nomination as unsuccessful. (I don't believe that the citation format, of itself, would have been sufficient to stop the nomination.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
