Template:Did you know nominations/List of crossings of the Upper Passaic River


 * 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

referencing issues per latest review and comments by SpinningSpark

List of crossings of the Upper Passaic River

 * ... that there are over 100 bridges crossing the Upper Passaic River and Lower Passaic River along the entire river's 81-mile course through northern New Jersey?
 * Reviewed: Pedals (bear)

Created by Djflem (talk). Self-nominated at 07:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC). -->


 * qpq review:Template:Did you know nominations/Pedals (bear) Djflem (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Over 100 crossings have been built" added to lead.Djflem (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Issue resolved. Good to go. Verne Equinox (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I came to promote this but found there was no inline citation for the "over 100" fact. I can see by counting that there are 93 or so crossings on the upper river list, and plenty more in the lower river article, but this information is not directly cited in the nominated article. If you could add, and cite, to this article a sentence on the number of crossings on the lower river, that would suffice. Alternatively, you could have a different hook just referring to the upper river and stating "over ninety". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * CALC Djflem (talk) 07:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think not. If it were mentioned in the article that there were X number of bridges on the lower river we could use CALC, but that fact is not mentioned. Alternatively a citation for the "Over 100 crossings have been built along the reaches of the river's length since the colonial era" statement would suffice. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Over 100 crossings have been built along the lower and upper river since the colonial era…..Djflem (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset, do you consider a citation is necessary here? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Cwmhiraeth, Djflem, that statement absolutely needs a citation. The article's table is of fewer than 100 crossings, which includes dams, water mains, and proposed structures. While these are, for the most part, cited, the companion article about the lower Passaic is not, and in any event cannot be used for calculations: for DYK, it's only what's in this article that's relevant. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

✅ Djflem (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The nominator has provided a reference, per request, and I have clarified a point in the article that was perhaps not clear, to wit, the hook refers to the entire river while the article refers to just one part. It works now and I recommend promoting the nom.Verne Equinox (talk)
 * If you are satisfied that the reference now given for the statement "Over 100 crossings have been built along the lower and upper river", does in fact support the hook fact, please give this nomination your tick of approval. Searching for "Passaic River" in that source I found 82 relevant hits, and repeating the search for "Passaic Riv" I found 97. None of this discussion would be necessary if the hook were changed to 90 rather than 100. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Posted on my Talk Page: "Thanks for you help with this. Have tweaked/ref'd article, and based on Wikipedia:CALC and Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads, where maps are used as references in multiple FA articles on roads and highways, many of which are edited by admins (and w/ref to Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates and the essay: Numbers need citations), I think it can stand as is. (For good order calculation at Talk:List of crossings of the Upper Passaic River, which only includes existing structures.) Djflem (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)" Verne Equinox (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Per the nominator's calculation, there are 2 culverts + 91 bridges + 8 dams + 3 power lines = 104 crossings. I recommend going with the original hook. If others disagree, either change the hook or drop it. Too much ink, or whatever, has been spilled on this one. For me, frankly, the debate is not worth it. I have no more time for this and will not collaborate any further on it.Verne Equinox (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Verne Equinox, Djflem, the hook says "over 100 bridges". The calculation above says "91 bridges" plus 13 other crossings. A power line is not a bridge, nor is a dam. I don't understand how "104 crossings" equals "over 100 bridges" in this case. If we attempt to take the hook as written to prep, it will get shot down for just this reason. As Cwmhiraeth noted earlier, if you want the 100 number, then something like "over 100 structures" will work; otherwise, "over 90 bridges". Please note that, given the wording of the hook as it now stands, these all need to be structures that are currently extant, not former or planned structures. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * per calculation @ Talk:List of crossings of the Upper Passaic River
 * 2 culverts + 90 vehicular bridges + 17 rail bridges + 5 foot bridges + 2 utility bridges + 8 dams/weir existing per 2016
 * Djflem (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * ALT1 ... that there are more than bridges crossing the Upper Passaic River and Lower Passaic River along the entire river's 81-mile course through northern New Jersey?
 * ALT2 ... that there are more than 110 bridges crossing the Upper Passaic River and Lower Passaic River along the entire river's 81-mile course through northern New Jersey?


 * Djflem, thank you for the new hooks. I have to confess I don't understand ALT1, or why it's interesting: all sorts of things can cross rivers, including such everyday things as electric lines. For ALT2, the article still says "over 100"; hooks and articles must agree on these basic facts. Also, now that the number of vehicular bridges is apparently down to 90, the article needs to adjust what it says to reflect that as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

As one sees ALT1 is a suggestion of Verne Equinox. ALT2 is a correction/suggestion that is indeed in agreement with article and more accurate (than the original hook). As mentioned above this is, for the good order to facilitate those reviewing this DYK, outlined at Talk:List of crossings of the Upper Passaic River where one sees there are 90 vehicular/road bridges + 17 rail bridges + 5 foot bridges + 2 water utility bridges, or a total 113 existing bridges (three of which are out of use). Additionally there at least two culverts as well at least eight dams/wiers, which are not considered part of the more than 100 bridges (of original hook) or 110 bridges (of ALT hook). Thanks. Djflem (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Djflem, I just this minute looked at the article. Nowhere is the number "110" given, or a number higher than that. What the article currently says is: "There are over 100 crossings along the lower and upper river including over 90 vehicular and 14 rail bridges." It needs to be brought into alignment with what you've just stated on this page. I've seen the list on the article's talk page, but the article itself needs this information. I have struck ALT1, since I do think it doesn't make sense. Please let me know here when the article reflects your (>110 bridges) calculations if you wish ALT2 used; in any event, since there are not over 90 vehicular bridges, but exactly 90, the article will need to be modified to reflect this fact. Finally, the Power lines section needs at least one inline source citation. Once these things are accomplished, this nomination will be ready for a final review. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

✅ Djflem (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Djflem. I took a look through the article, and was surprised to see over half a dozen bare URLs being cited as references. Bare URL references aren't allowed for DYK articles (see WP:DYKSG), so I'm going to have to request that you fill them in. I'm sorry there's a further delay, but you're almost there. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

✅ Djflem (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to check current hooks now that previous issues and bare URLs have been responded to. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Djflem just asked me if I would look at this. I have recently added an image with updated coords to the list article and talk page. Would reviewing this be a conflict of interest per DYK rules? Also, can the hook depend directly on two articles, since the lower Passaic one is not under review? Thanks, Zeete (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Zeete, in my opinion adding a single image is not a conflict of interest for your review, not even close. The hook must be completely supported in the bolded article alone: while that article is about the Upper Passaic, it can have relevant information about the entire run of the Passaic (included the Lower reaches), and have the appropriate sources as well to support that information. What it can't do is rely on the Lower Passaic article and its sources to uniquely supply any information in the hook; it must all be present and sourced in the Upper article. (Note that the hook is talking about numbers of crossings; the Upper article doesn't need to list each individual one in the Lower section, just back up the overall numbers.) Is that clear? If not, I'll be happy to try again. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Questions: Thanks, Zeete (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Article length: DYKcheck reports 2009, but the Power Lines section is 580 and appears basically to be an in-line list, (2a: counts should ignore lists), leaving 1429, less than 1500. Is the article long enough?
 * The power lines section is prose.Djflem (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Power lines were used in the count in the above discussion and are described as crossings in the article. They are therefore part of the list of crossings and by eligibilty criteria 2c: Proposed lists need 1,500+ characters of prose, aside from the listed items themselves. Thanks, Zeete (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The power lines are not used in any count. They are not presented in the article as crossings. Article so amended so as to eliminate the apparent confusion. Incidentally, neither are footbridges or dams/wiers. The hook refers specifically to the vehicular and rail bridges as mentioned in the hook sentence:There are over 110 crossings along the lower and upper river including vehicular and rail bridges. Djflem (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Hook Content: Variation of there are many crossings theme. Is this relevant for more than just novelty or newness? Is there another hook on an interesting fact?
 * There are over 125 existing crossings (as well tens of historical bridges) over the relatively short (80 mile) course of the river, an extremely high ratio which speaks to the historical development and the (sub)-urban density of the region.Djflem (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg This would be interesting but it is not in the article, would be too long for a hook and would need a reliable source. Please suggest a new hook. Thanks, Zeete (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Appears to be matter of taste. Four editors have discussed the DYK nom in the context of the number of crossings and there's consensus to keep it. Djflem (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Cited hook: Is there an independent reliable source that supports the hook, not just the cited counting arguments? Could a typical reader verify the counts?
 * Typical (?) readers could verify the citations by counting the items in them.Djflem (talk)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I have tried, even used a spreadsheet, but could not get consistent meaningful counts given the various definitions of "crossing". Main point is that there is no independent reliable source that supports the hook. Thanks, Zeete (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The definition of crossing is no where discussed in the article There are over 110 crossings along the lower and upper river including vehicular and rail bridges. There are over 110 vehicular and rail crossings: Utility/footbridges and dams/weir/ are not included in the 110. The info about power lines lines lies outside the scope of the listings.Djflem (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg If the power lines section is outside its scope, then should it be included in the article? The article length, hook content, and cited hook problems remain. Thanks, Zeete (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * From above, it say DYKcheck reports 2009. Since the power lines section is prose and is relevant to the article the article length is fine. It is out of the scope of the hook, which for the sake of simplicity refers only to  vehicular and rail bridges. It is unclear what is meant by hook content. The hook text is fine, as four editors have agreed, so there's no reason to change it. References provide verification as to whether there over 100 crossings (as 111 or 112 or any  number above 100) or not: that may include simple addition that most "typical readers" would be capable of. Thanks19:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The power lines section is either part of the list or should be removed, either way it should not count in the article length. While it may be accurate, the hook content is not interesting. Even if it were interesting, there is no independent reliable source that supports it. Next steps? Thanks, Zeete (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Despite your claim, the power lines section is not Included in the the list. It is clearly separate prose section. If you wish to add it to the list of crossing sections then please do the research, find the coordinates, and insert it into the actual list. Otherwise it is prose that relevant to the article. Djflem (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Arguing whether the power line section should be counted as prose is pointless. The article length is still 2000 characters without it, so meets the criterion regardless.  However, the citations for the hook fact are deficient.  Of the four cites, two are to a wmflabs tool.  Those cannot possibly count as reliable sources and should not be in the article at all, at least, not as references.  The other two are to Google maps which are also a bit iffy and are not directly verifying the hook in any case.  The cites for the vehicular and rail crossings do not directly give this information either.  It takes some OR to extract the number of crossings from the tables.  Now the article lists 110 crossings (or at least I assume it does, they are not numbered) and they are all referenced, ergo, there are at least 110 crossings.  Fine to say that in the article, but if no reliable source has seen fit to highlight the high number of crossings, then it is not a suitable fact for DYK. SpinningSpark 21:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg I was going to suggest an alt hook; I was looking at "the first [crossing] over the upper river was Totowa Bridge, constructed before 1737" but the cite does not actually verify the fact. The 1737 date is not found in the ref at all.  The more I look at this article, the more the referencing seems deficient.  I now think DYK should drop this one for that reason, there are just too many verification failures to accept. SpinningSpark 22:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * CALC supports number in prose lead plus list. 1737 ref cite shifted from listing to prose. lede.Djflem (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:CALC is not the issue. Read what I said again. SpinningSpark 13:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You wrote a lot. Can you be specific?Djflem (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * DYK criterion 3b requires an inline cite that directly supports the hook fact immediately folowing the fact in the article. A fact that relies on WP:CALC across multiple sources cannot meet that and hence is not a suitable DYK fact.  But I have a bigger problem than that with the article.  In the course of reviewing, the first five references I checked were all deficient in one way or another as described above.  That's after the nomination has been open for two months and discussed at length.  Consequently, I have no faith in the quality of the referencing and am not prepared to do any further reviewing.  Hence my recommendation is to reject the submission. SpinningSpark</b> 12:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)