Template:Did you know nominations/Sir John Rogerson's Quay


 * 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 Yoninah (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sir John Rogerson's Quay

 * ... that Sir John Rogerson's Quay was a private development in 18th-century Dublin, and became home to a 19th-century diving bell used to further develop Dublin's quays? [ Hook source:  ]
 * Reviewed: Robert Napuʻuako Boyd
 * Comment: Created in Sep 2008 as a oneliner. It remained so until last week. Expanded about 7x between 27 Jan and 30 Jan 2017.Guliolopez (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

5x expanded by Guliolopez (talk). Self-nominated at 17:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Article has been recently expanded fivefold and is long enough to qualify. No policy issues that I can see. The latter half of the hook is fine, but the first part (18th century private development) is in a separate part of the article and is not referenced in-line; it would be better to remove it all together, as it wouldn't really be missed. QPQ is fine.  Sounder Bruce  04:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks so much for taking the time to review. On the points raised:
 * '"18th century private development" is not referenced in line' - This is now addressed
 * '"18th century private development" is in a separate part of the article' - I don't really understand whether/what is meant here, or if this is a an issue to be solved. Or an observation. If we can improve something here, just let me know.
 * '"18th century private development" should be removed' - If we think it's a big problem, then happy to remove it. However, personally, that it was a private development is (IMO) significant. In fact, I had even considered making this the hook. Alone. Referencing de Courcy's quote. The reason I didn't is because I personally don't like DYK hooks that refer to someone's opinion. ("Did you know about X's opinion concerning Y?" seems weak IMO. When compared to "Did you know about fact X concerning Y?"). If you can propose an alternative hook, then please let me know. Though personally I don't see what problem is caused by including the words "private development"...(?)
 * Thanks again for taking the time and effort. Hopefully addressing the inline ref issue helps. Guliolopez (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Alright, my main issue (the citation) has been addressed. As for the hook itself, I mistakenly thought that the facts in the hook would need to be in the same sentence/paragraph in order to qualify, but a further look at the guidelines says otherwise. Good work.  Sounder Bruce  23:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg There is some close paraphrasing which needs to be rewritten/rephrased in your own words:
 * Source: The land between the walls was filled with sand and gravel dredged from the river
 * Article: The gap between these walls was filled with sand and gravel dredged from the river.
 * Yoninah (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . In honesty I am very surprised to read a suggestion of CLOP, and in particular on that sentence. There is a very limited number of ways to state that the quay was built between two walls, with the gap between was filled with material dredged from the river. That statement (to my own read) falls into the category of WP:LIMITED. I have however reviewed the snippet. And revised slightly. If considered insufficient, then I'm not sure what else to suggest. As any further changes would result in an awkward construct that would not represent natural language use. Guliolopez (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg yes, I see what you mean. It looks like it's enough to replace "river" with "Liffey". Restoring tick per SoundBruce's review. Yoninah (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)