Template:Did you know nominations/Riwŏn


 * 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)  23:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

There has been no response to the ping here on June 18, or to talk-page ping from a month ago and a last call there in late July. Marking for closure as unsuccessful.

Riwŏn

 * ... that the economy of Riwon is based on fishing, supplemented by the income of local members of the North Korean navy?
 * ALT1:... that local businesses and workers assisted the US landing at Riwon, North Korea, in 1950?
 * ALT2:... that the US and South Korean army landed at Riwon in late October 1950 and was pushing towards the Chinese border when the PRC's entrance into the Korean War forced them back?
 * ALT3:... that tanks were used as makeshift towtrucks during the US Army's landing at Riwon in late October 1950?
 * ALT4:... that North and South Koreans have different pronunciations for the town of Riwon?
 * Reviewed: Will do Eva Randová
 * Comment: @Reviewers: Don't worry. You only need to review the hook(s) most interesting to you.

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 06:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC).


 * ALT3 seems the "hookiest" of these. I took the liberty of striking "late October" to reduce unnecessary length. —Patrug (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Undone. The length is well within standards and the dramatic shifts in the Korean War make noting the month necessary rather than un-. You're welcomed to read up on it.

Also, without a review, your input is welcome but it's up to the reviewer which hook is most interesting to her or him. — Llywelyn II   23:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Reviewers read comments, too – because when you think about it, feedback from non-experts is quite relevant indeed in judging a hook's appeal for the general readership of the Main Page. Decades after an event, I can assure you that those readers will be utterly uninterested in the particular week from 1950. But of course, YMMV – best of luck. —Patrug (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Long enough, new enough, generally well-sourced and within polciy w.r.t. copyright and neutrality. Hook is referenced in the article, AGF since I can't access the google books link. Before I pass this, please address the cn tags I just added, and slightly expand the lead to mention why the subject is notable. HaEr48 (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time. Weird about the Google Books link, unless you're in China without a VPN or something. The fact tags are a fair complaint and I'll see what I can do, although there may be nothing in English and we have to leave it as it is. If you don't understand notability, well, that's really on you. Human settlements qualify, and the article already has multiple secondary sources. expand lead and similar concerns are something for an article's talk page, not the  process. —  Llywelyn II   13:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. One of the review criteria is "meets core policies and guidelines", so I think I'll ask you again to address the cn (even non-English source is fine), and add a sentence or two on the lead. I agree per WP:GEOLAND that settlements are notable, I'm just asking that the lead should include what's notable about the town. Per WP:LEAD: "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". HaEr48 (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, though my VPN has crapped out and the cites will have to wait til I can use Google again. I'll point out that just wants the hook cited and the points being addressed here are completely tangential to the article. I don't think they are any reason to hold up the review but you're the reviewer so that's your call. At most, you're just asking me to remove mention of its status as a county seat and that historical bit until the review passes, at which point I'll just add them back; seems unhelpful, but again your call. As far as notability, as you noted and then forgot, that's already done. It is a human settlement and there are already cites to that effect and links to its coordinates, which you can verify with the map program of your choosing. If you feel incapable of accepting that, you're welcome to add what you think is particularly interesting about the town or hand off the review to someone else. —  Llywelyn II   10:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The hook is not the only part that needs to be reviewed, the reviewing guide says the article must meet "core policies and guidelines", and "cites sources with inline citations" is one of the policies highlighted in particular. Frankly, rather than arguing I think improving the article would be a better use of your time. We're not litigants trying to find a hole in the process here, I'm here to review the article and makes sure it's of the appropriate quality before we feature it in the main page. HaEr48 (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I quite agree, but you have confused with . This article does meet core policies and guidelines already, as you've already conceded. (It's notable because it's a settlement; the lead exists and mentions it's a settlement.) Having every single point sourced is not an issue and, if I can't find an English source for those two items, both of which came from other Wikipedia entries, it's more of a disservice to our s to make me remove them just to process the  unless you actually in good faith doubt their accuracy. Afaict, that's not actually the case.

In any case, I'm not expanding the lead because it already accurately describes what is notable about this settlement and an extra sentence or two to make you feel better has nothing to do with general or policy. You're welcome to move on and leave this to another reviewer, although that complaint is so questionable I'd look askance on using this as a QPQ in that case. I will look for the citations, of course, as soon as I can use Google again. — Llywelyn II   00:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do find the sources. Even if it's non-English it's fine by Wikipedia policy. I don't think it's "questionable" to ask for improvements before running the article in the main page. "cites sources with inline citations" is one of the core policies required by DYK. As for finding another reviewer, what's the point of a review process if you change reviewer until you find the one who's willing to approves the article? I did my job as a reviewer, it's you who refused to act on the review. HaEr48 (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is reasonable to ask for time to deal with citation issues, or to provide sources in other languages if English sources are not available. It is not reasonable to suggest that you do not need to address those issues, or that should move on if they are dissatisfied with the citations. WP:V is a core policy. For an article to pass DYK, it needs to meet that policy; which means that uncited material which has been challenged needs to be cited. No comment on the other issues. Vanamonde (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "Due to the silting of the mouth of the Namdae, Riwon was located a little inland by the 1950s, with a larger port named Kunsŏn," is cited to a map. Does the map actually say this? Also, this is not that clear, "with a larger port" is an incomplete thought. I think this is some OR, but not totally sure what is being said. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:5D (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg There has been no response to the ping here on June 18, or to talk-page ping from a month ago and a last call there in late July. Marking for closure as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)