Template:Did you know nominations/Fiesta del Pacifico


 * 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 PFHLai (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Fiesta del Pacifico

 * ... that San Diego's civic celebration Fiesta del Pacifico featured a theatrical production billed as "the biggest non-movie spectacle ever produced anywhere"?
 * ALT1: ... that San Diego's civic celebration Fiesta del Pacifico featured a theatrical production that claimed to be "the biggest non-movie spectacle ever produced anywhere"?
 * Reviewed: Amawalk Friends Meeting House

Created by MelanieN (talk). Self nominated at 16:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg The article is long enough and nominated the same day as creation, and the hook is interesting and supported by the Fiesta's program. I do not see any copvios or close paraphrasing issues. The sourcing for the most part looks okay, but I have a question about some of the sources:
 * Can San Diego Hold a Legitimate International Exposition? - What makes this reliable? It seems to have a lot of opinion mixed in here. Also, who is Richard Amero? Other links from his website are used to support other portions of the article, but I don't know what makes him reliable. Could the nominator please explain Amero's reliability?
 * Unseen 50s Racing Footage: San Diego’s Fiesta del Pacifico, 1956. What makes this blog reliable? Please explain.
 * If these issues are resolved, I'm fine with this going on the main page.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 22:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your careful review, User:3family6. Richard Amero was a local historian of San Diego; in particular he was the premier historian of Balboa Park. Most of his work was published through the San Diego Historical Society (now called the San Diego History Center), as monographs or in their Journal of San Diego History. Here is a sample search page from the SDHC website, showing some of his writings and collected papers that they now hold. As for the auto racing blog, I don't claim it to be "reliable" in the usual sense of "has a reputation for fact checking and editorial control", but I did think it was sufficient to establish that there were auto races in connection with the Fiesta. If you think that's not valid I will delete it; it's not essential, and not germane to the hook in any case. BTW do you have a preference between the hook and the alt? --MelanieN (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for the explanation. I assumed that Richard Amero was reliable, but I wanted confirmation. As for the racing blog, I really think you should use a better source, or just delete that portion. In the past couple weeks, DYK promotions are facing much more intense scrutiny, and a lot of noms are getting pulled from the prep area, so I want to make sure that things are nailed down tight. As for the hook, I prefer the first one, as it uses less passive voice and thus grabs one's attention better (sorry, had to insert that passive voice as joke) . If you can clear up the issue with the racing blog, then I will happily promote this to the Main Page.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 13:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I removed the auto racing blog. Thanks for your advice. --MelanieN (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg You're welcome. Reliability issues resolved, article is GTG.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 14:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg The hook fact is sourced to a primary source. I would rather use something from a third-party source. Yoninah (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yoninah, in this case, the hook tells what the event was "billed as" or "claimed to be". It seemed to me that a primary source was exactly the right thing to use here, since the event organizers (the primary source) are the ones doing the billing/claiming. The claim is in quotation marks; the primary source is the thing being quoted. It would be like direct-quoting from a book and citing the book as the source. Does that make sense? --MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it makes sense. But in general we're supposed to be citing third-party sources for verification. Yoninah (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that - in general. But in this case, the fact that needs verification is "this is how the pageant was described by its organizers" - and it's hard to imagine a better verification of how the organizers described it than the organizers' own words! In any case, it will not be possible to find a third party source for this. No outside party is likely to repeat the organizers' claim about the pageant, and the event was more than 50 years ago, pre-internet. So if third-party verification is a requirement, I will simply have to withdraw the nomination, because third-party verification is not possible. --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not just propose a different hook? Yoninah (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was going to add: WP:Primary sources specifically DOES allow primary sources in appropriate cases: "For example, an article about a novel may cite passages (from the novel, i.e., the primary source) to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." I really have trouble understanding why this is not an appropriate case for verification by primary source. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I defer to others' opinions. Could 3family6 or another reviewer comment, please? Yoninah (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg I agree with MelanieN that this is certainly an appropriate case for verification by primary sources. The original hook checks out online with citation #5. Review of 23 June by 3family6 taken on trust. QPQ done. I have struck ALT1 in favour of the original hook because "billed" in modern usage means "advertised as" and historical advertising is what we are looking at in the citation link (whereas "claimed" in ALT1 is less precise). Good to go.