Template:Did you know nominations/Karlino oil eruption
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 PFHLai (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Karlino oil eruption[edit]
- ... that the Karlino oil eruption put an end to the dreams of Poland becoming a "second Kuwait"?
Created/expanded by Tymek (talk). Self nom at 05:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Article is new and long enough, but lacks in sourcing (or rather in the use of the sources), the "Aftermath" section is almost completely unsourced and some other statements are either unsourced (such as "Hopes were high [...]" in the "Background" section) or may seem to be sourced from a citation at the end of the paragraph but is not, and is really sourced from another of the references (such as the first part of the "The eruption" section). Also references should be standardised and fixed, there are four references linking to the same page, for example. And the hook should be mentioned in the article itself, not only in the lead. You'll also have to review another DYK nom and post back here to satisfy QPQ. – Elisson • T • C • 16:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- The article looks much better now, if there are any more problems, let me know. Tymek (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Some of the problems stated above have not yet been adressed: missing and/or confusing citations for some parts, the hook not being mentioned in the article itself (only in the lead) and you'll have to review another DYK nom and post back the diff to the review here. – Elisson • T • C • 20:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- I do not see any missing or confusing citations here, so please provide examples. As for the hook, you have a mention of Polish Kuwait in the background section, and it does not take a scholar to come to conclusion that a fire like that was a big disappointment. And do I really have to review another DYK? Is it a rule? Cause I have written a number of DYKs and nobody has ever asked me to do it. Tymek (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Second opinion. The article does not follow WP:LEAD, but I don't believe it is required for DYKs. The hook seems fine to me, although it could perhaps be simplified and clarified into "put an end to the dreams of Poland becoming an oil-exporting contry". Citations are poorly formatted, and it would be nice if you could start formatting them properly (I run REFLINKs, but the script is hardly perfect). Regarding DYK reviewing, yes, it's has been a rule for about a year that editors who are not newbies to DYKs and have more than 10 or so DYKs should help out by reviewing someone else's article, to reduce the backlog here. As you have authored more than that, it would be appreciated if you could help out with reviewing (at the same time I have to question a wisdom of whether an editor who still has issues with part of one's own DYK is qualified to review others...). Let me know if you have any questions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Since I do not see any problems with the article, I request another review, not that of user Elisson, and not that of Piotrus, as he is very helpful, but since he is Polish, I do not want him to be accused of being biased here. The article is new and long enough, a number of references has been provided, and I have no intention to waste my time on dealing with user Elisson and his wishes. Tymek (talk) 05:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you don't feel like "dealing with" me. It's not really my problem, I don't really care about the article, if it gets accepted for DYK or what happens to this nomination. I just reviewed it, pointed out a few problems that if fixed would improve the trustworthiness of the article and it's general appearance. I have no interrest in being a dick, so I'll just leave the discussion at this point. Good luck. – Elisson • T • C • 18:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Since I do not see any problems with the article, I request another review, not that of user Elisson, and not that of Piotrus, as he is very helpful, but since he is Polish, I do not want him to be accused of being biased here. The article is new and long enough, a number of references has been provided, and I have no intention to waste my time on dealing with user Elisson and his wishes. Tymek (talk) 05:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just an observation: the article does not meet our guidelines for prose quality, pure and simple: sentences like "the area around the drill hole was bright from the fire" are not OK. The article needs a serious copyedit, besides the other issues mentioned above. Sorry Tymek, but that's the way it is. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your opinion Drmies. If the article is not good enough for DYK, then it is OK. I move on to other articles, and the case is closed. Tymek (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, why not have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? I don't know how much they charge or if they do things on request, but it's worth a shot. You have an interesting article there, and cleanup makes everyone happy. Give it a shot Tymek, and good luck with this and other articles. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your opinion Drmies. If the article is not good enough for DYK, then it is OK. I move on to other articles, and the case is closed. Tymek (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- They are evil and they will demand beer or whiskey from me, and I'd rather drink it myself. Seriously, I am tired of it. The problem is that if you or anybody else feels the article needs some changes, why not make them yourself? I do not feel like wasting my time, and then someone will say: "The article is nice, but...." Cheers. Tymek (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Somebody have another look at it now, please; I gave it a good once-over. (And no, I don't charge, but then I am not a member of any guild.) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Looks a lot cleaner. But I stopped at "The eruption" because I see sourcing problems: the entire paragraph is sourced to one article from Dziennik Polska-Europa-Świat (took a while for me to figure out since the references do not contain sufficient bibliographic information--really they should be templated), and that article does not seem to verify all the facts in the paragraph. So, as far as I'm concerned, it's not ready. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Since it is a rule, I have reviewed a DYK nomination, see here [1]. With help of several good people (Danim, Avenue, Yngvadottir - thank you all), the article looks much better. Yes, the paragraph "The eruption" is based on one source, as I did not want to repeat the same reference several times there. The thing is that even though the eruption made front page news back in 1980, there are few sources now, and I had to use what is available. Tymek (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
