Template:Did you know nominations/Royden Park


 * 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 Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Royden Park

 * ... that there is a bog garden at Royden Park? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates) The ref is a picture of an info board at the park, i took it myself. Info_board_at_royden_park.jpg
 * ALT1:... that the Wirral Model Engineering Society operates a combined 2½, 3½ and 5½ inch gauge raised railway track for fine scale models of full size steam locomotives at Royden Park? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
 * ALT2: ...that the Wirral Model Engineering Society operates a raised railway track for fine scale models of full size steam locomotives at Royden Park?
 * The ref is here, text is The first raised track was constructed in the Park in 1966 and also The locomotives that operate on the raised track are usually fine scale models of full size engines. The steam locomotives are fired using good quality coal
 * Symbol confirmed.svg I like this one but either will do.

Created/expanded by Szzuk (talk). Self-nominated at 08:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC).


 * it’s pretty minor, please reword “Royden in 1961 the estate was conveyed by his executors to Hoylake Urban District Council and opened as a public park. Following local government re-organisation in 1974 Wirral Council now manage the site.“ as it is almost word-for-word from the source material. Other than that it looks fine. Symbol confirmed.svg fixed, looks good.
 * I’m concerned that with all the sources used int he article, you chose to use for your hook a detail which is seemingly only sourced to a picture you took, which is not used in the article. Symbol confirmed.svg fixed by new hook
 * Not really, and given the other issue identified a new hook seems in order. The arch or the miniature railroad both strike me as more interesting features Symbol confirmed.svg by new hook
 * I've added a section on the model railways, it is unique having scale model steam locomotives, not so much the rideable model locomotives, i've also reworded the sentence that was too much like the original.
 * I've added a section on the model railways, it is unique having scale model steam locomotives, not so much the rideable model locomotives, i've also reworded the sentence that was too much like the original.

Comment. This has been reviewed and approved but the bot hasn't moved it on. Szzuk (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Szzuk, the DYK checklist template has been filled in with a status of "?" (any icon in the "comments" field is properly ignored by the bot), which indicates that there is still a problem; the bot only cares about that field when the checklist template is used. Beeblebrox, adding icons willy-nilly within the DYK checklist template should never be done; what matters are the (valid) values put in the various fields. When problems have been fixed, the way to show that is to change the value of the field(s) in question, not to add icons (which don't belong there). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe reviews wouldn’t sit for so long if this process weren’t stupidly complicated with rules that aren’t written down in an obvious place. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The bot is still resisting so I've removed the remaining x's and moved text out of the template and put it below the template. The conversation is less understandable, but anyway, ALT1 or ALT2 have been approved. Szzuk (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The bot has done the move. Beeblebrox, since the rules don't mention anything about the DYK checklist template, and it isn't required, you must have chosen to use it on your own. I'd like to recommend that you avoid it since you clearly don't understand how to use it; it's simple enough to instead briefly write out in English what you have checked and precede your text with a single icon for the review result. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)