Template:Did you know nominations/Washington State Route 512
- 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 SL93 (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Washington State Route 512
- ... that Washington State Route 512 has an overpass designed for pedestrians and school buses? Source: Tacoma News Tribune
- ALT1: ... that the construction of Washington State Route 512 included a new high school football stadium to replace a demolished one? Source: Tacoma News Tribune
- Reviewed: Yi Jeonggyu
Improved to GA status by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 20:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC).
Article was brought to GA status on time and no close paraphrasing was found. QPQ still pending. ALT1 is cited inline and verified. My preferred hook is actually the original, but neither the article nor the source seem to say that the overpass was solely designed for pedestrians/school buses but rather they were taken into account during construction. This issue will need to be clarified before approval. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: I would've ticked ALT1 and left ALT0 up to further work- having one viable hook is usually good enough if the article is okay. As for ALT0, doesn't the article say
pedestrian–school bus overpass at Franklin Pierce High School
? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)- It does, but there's no direct mention of the overpass being designed solely for pedestrians and school buses, rather it was built with those in mind. The sticking point here was the term "solely". In addition, it has been a week since the review and a QPQ still needs to be provided. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Then we should probably ping SounderBruce. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- It does, but there's no direct mention of the overpass being designed solely for pedestrians and school buses, rather it was built with those in mind. The sticking point here was the term "solely". In addition, it has been a week since the review and a QPQ still needs to be provided. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: I would've ticked ALT1 and left ALT0 up to further work- having one viable hook is usually good enough if the article is okay. As for ALT0, doesn't the article say
- @Narutolovehinata5: Added QPQ and removed "solely" from the hook. SounderBruce 22:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Issues have been resolved, I'll let the promoter pick what hook they want, although now I think about it, I think ALT1 might actually be more unusual than the new ALT0 since "solely" was what made the original hook unusual to me and without it the hook becomes less unusual. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
