Template:Did you know nominations/Gibraltar Falls

Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues

Gibraltar Falls

 * ... that the Gibraltar Falls in the Namadgi National Park are mainly used for water drainage?
 * Reviewed: Aratus pisonii (nom)
 * Comment: Note that the Gibraltar Falls are in the Australian Capital Territory, not Gibraltar, meaning that it does not require two reviews. "Gibraltar" is just the name of it.

Created/expanded by LauraHale (talk), Thine Antique Pen (talk). Nominated by Thine Antique Pen (talk) at 21:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As the article name contains the word "Gibraltar" I'll review this twice for you.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Review 1: Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go!!
 * Review 2: Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go!!

ALT hook "that the Gibraltar Falls were diverted into a shark tank for a period of five years, to avoid mainstream spectators admiring it?
 * Thanks and D. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg This hook makes no sense. What does "primarily used for water drainage" mean when it comes to a natural watercourse? It isn't confirmed by either of the two cited sources (one of which says "its drainage is pretty much limited"). Have struck the hook and the joke hook, and I hope an interesting, accurate hook can be constructed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ALT1: that three Glossy Black Cockatoos were spotted at Gibraltar Falls, which are not commonly found in the Australian Capital Territory? Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think "though they" would work better than "which", which could initially be read as referring to the Falls themselves. Or the hook could be revised to more closely connect the Cockatoos with the ACT. However, the article still needs to be revised: the problem statement in the original hook was taken from the article, and it's still in the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote4.png New review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article is long enough, and makes enough sense now. Is also new enough and is cited throughout.  The hook alt1 is cited and confirmed in the reference, it is also sufficiently short.  Pretty insignificant fact though! No plagiarism discovered. QPQ extant. Good to go. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg I have pulled this article from the queue, after checking the article and the sources, and removing all incorrect, badly sourced, or irrelevant information (while still leaving some padding about e.g. the barbecue at the car park). What remains of the article doesn't meet the minimum requirements for DYK. Fram (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On what grounds? It still meets the minimum size. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I did a check to see whether a new icon was more appropriate, and ended up removing the claim about new facilities upgrade in 2012 (it was a safety upgrade to the trail only), and the hours of the park (WP:NOTTRAVEL), which places the article well below minimum size even if you overlook the identical "The falls have a 50 metres (160 feet) drop" phrases in both intro and Background sections. What remains is simply not DYK quality: the Background section especially reads like a set of unrelated facts. I did revise the icon to give the creators an opportunity to improve the article if they wish to. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There is something wrong with DYK if an article can not meet the minimum requirements a full month after being nominated, but the nomination still being open. This turns DYK into a game where you just have to nominate the article inside 5 days, and then you have all the time in the world to get it into shape. This article should just be dismissed from DYK, it had its chance and blew it. Fram (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it did meet the requirements until Fram removed content from the article. Fram is setting higher standards for DYKs than the rules require. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, isn't being correct no longer one of the requirements? Perhaps for you, the rule that states "cites sources with inline citations" should be expanded with "which are reliable and which actually support the facts they are supposed to support"? Considering you e.g. accepted Template:Did you know nominations/Andy Bor a few days ago, which had a completely incorrect hook which appeared on the mainpage thanks to you, I don't think you have any right to discuss "standards" here. Fram (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this discussion is becoming unduly personalised, which isn't really helpful.


 * Yes, some nominations at DYK take quite some time for consensus to be reached. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * An article shouldn't be dismissed from DYK because it took a long time to review it, obviously. But if an article takes a long time and a lot of work to get it up to DYK standards after it had been nominated, then it actually wasn't DYK ready after the 5-day period and shouldn't be promoted. Fram (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Despite further discussion, there has been no action on the article since my last post. The creators have had over a week to improve the article yet no edits have been made, so the article is not approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)