Template:Did you know nominations/Mina Salman
- The following discussion 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 PumpkinSky talk 12:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Mina Salman
[edit]- ... that Mina Salman's harbour, in Bahrain, was initially unsuitable for ocean liners and that these ships had to anchor up to 6 km (3.7 mi) offshore until the construction of a deep-water wharf in 1962?
Created/expanded by Droodkin (talk). Self nom at 10:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
My count of hook length is 199 characters. Count I have is 3 DYK noms, so this is number 4. Only one more free one after this. Plagiarism check [1][2][3][4] show no plagiarism concerns.
Bit concerned about notability here. Which guideline covers this? GNG is not apparent based on sources, which mostly appear to be primary sources.
THIS shows "container terminal can handle vessels of up to 65 thousand tons dwt its two berths are a combined 600 meters long and storage area of 423 thousand square meters can accommodate up to almost 10 thousand teus (37 words, 206 characters)" Manual check confirms. And here we stop until the plagiarism gets addressed. (Along with notability.) --LauraHale (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Address notability and plagiarism concerns. --LauraHale (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Clarify notability.
- Rectified, it is notable since it was the chief port (and by many aspects, still is) of Bahrain.--Droodkin (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not you specifically, but DYKs about certain countries concern me and when plagiarism is found in articles about Bahrain and India, I'm generally not comfortable giving the tick to go on my own unless some one else reviews them to make sure no more problems are found. I'd like a second opinion to make sure others are comfortable that no more problems exist. (They might not. Sometimes, these aberrations happen on accident to the best of editors.) It will probably end up languishing as a result. My apologies. --LauraHale (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Second opinion requested. --LauraHale (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Still some close paraphrasing issues - compare for example "the only port in the Persian Gulf to be entirely operated by the home country's nationals" with "the only one in the Gulf that is entirely operated by its nationals". I also think that in an effort to avoid close paraphrasing, you might have mistakenly obscured some of the facts - for example, you state that "Over 80% of the port's cargo is containerised", but the source says that 80% of Bahrain's total cargo imports are containerised. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- A few edits have been made to the article, including a new source for the port's cargo (and a slightly lower number thereby). It may now be ready to be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Much better, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- A few edits have been made to the article, including a new source for the port's cargo (and a slightly lower number thereby). It may now be ready to be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)