Template:Did you know nominations/Transportation in Montana

Transportation in Montana

 * ... that the Milwaukee Road, Great Northern and Northern Pacific transcontinental rail routes were all once part of Transportation in Montana?
 * ALT1: ... that over 40 now-defunct railroads were part of Transportation in Montana in the industrial period of the 19th and early 20th century?
 * ALT2: ... that the 2008 U.S. census recorded almost 289,000 people live in the cities served by all the Amtrak stations in Montana? (Don't know where to put the link to the main article in this hook)
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Maarouf Saad
 * Comment: I've come up with a few alternative hooks, see what you like.

Created by Rcsprinter123 (talk). Self nominated at 10:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg ready 2 go. I suggest alt 2 hook.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Hook (suggested ALT2) was pulled from main page because, as was pointed out, the US has decennial censuses, and the last two were in 2000 and 2010. A hook that says there was one in 2008 is clearly in error in some fundamental way. I've struck ALT2; under the circumstances, I think a new review by a new reviewer is in order, and one that mentions the DYK requirements that have been checked, to give more confidence that the nomination is indeed ready for promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * When I was writing the article I did notice that the census was not in the right year and I asked User:Demiurge1000 for a bit of advice on the matter. He said that it is most likely that either the source had an accidental typo in or that the figure was based on a count made for the census before the main census was published. He said that whatever, as it was a govt source I should carry on writing what it says and that's what I did. Note that I am not trying to shift any blame here. Now, I didn't suggest the hook (ALT2) with the strange error in it so I say promote it again with a different hook. Somebody could also look up the data and maybe get another source from the Montana government to cite the figure in the article. But that can be done another day, and for the purposes of this DYK nomination, please just feature the original hook or ALT1 on the main page instead; I feel it would be a waste of an otherwise sound nomination if it was closed without a proper duration on the main page.  Rcsprinter    (rap)  @ 22:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The question at the moment seems to be whether it's a federal census number or some other census number, since it was found in a state report (note the comment on the article's talk page). So long as the dispute template remains on the article, I'd be hesitant to promote it. However, I think the article needs a new reviewer, given the issues with the previous review, which had no explanation of what was checked in the course of the review. I'm not proposing to close the nomination, but asking for a check by someone new.


 * I'm not quite sure why you're saying you didn't suggest ALT2: it was one of the three you proposed initially—though Mandarax added the bold link to the hook when you weren't sure where to put it—and just because BabbaQ preferred it doesn't mean it wasn't your hook to start with, and one that you could reasonably expect might be chosen. Finally, is there a reason why "Transportation" is being capitalized in the remaining hooks? Unless it's a normally capitalized word when placed in the middle of a sentence, like "Montana" is, it should be lowercase in the hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did write that hook; got confused there. Well, I'm happy for there to be a new review.  Rcsprinter    (tell me stuff)  @ 05:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to check the article and the remaining hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article moved from userspace draft on 21 August and submitted on 24 August so the article is definitely new enough. Prose is well over the 1500 minimum, which doesn't include the bulleted lists.  Article is neutral and uses appropriate in-line citations to both primary and independent sources.  A spot-check of the prose revealed no signs of plagiarism of close paraphrasing.  The first hook is sourced (though the source was not placed there initially in the article; I've taken care of it).  It's somewhat interesting, probably more interesting for train enthusiasts or U.S. historians.  The second hook (ALT1) is also sourced, and I think it is the better of the two.  QPQ checks out, though as a side note, it's not really clear from the review itself whether article passed the criteria or not.  I only say this because my reviews were somewhat unclear in the past, and I've been (correctly) criticized for it.)  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 20:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)