Template:Did you know nominations/Kayangan Lake

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: rejected by reviewer, closed by BorgQueen talk 14:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Kayangan Lake

(
)
Created by DarkNight0917 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 12 past nominations.

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC).

  • I will do a full review of this later, but for now my main concern is the hook. The claim of it being the cleanest lake in Asia is an exceptional claim, so per WP:DYKHOOK and WP:EXCEPTIONAL would require exceptional sourcing. Right now the article uses The Straits Times as the source for the fact: it is yellow on WP:RSP, which generally means it is to be used with caution on Wikipedia, and its suitability is a case-by-case thing. In this case, it may not be completely safe for it to be what supports the source. Either more independent or stronger sourcing should be found, or a different hook be proposed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Okay, propose this one: ALT1:... that a tribe performed rituals in a lake to let outsiders use it? Source:TST this hook uses the Straits times, let me know if it's okay or not. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ALT1 should be okay as the article isn't about the Singaporean government and there's no reason to doubt that the ST is unreliable in this case. The main issue right now is that part of the article appears to be a close paraphrase of the Straits Times article, so that needs urgent attention. The sourcing in the article isn't the best since it seems to rely on tourist guide websites, but for the purpose of the article it probably isn't disqualifying since they aren't used to support contentious information. As for the rest of the DYK checks, the article is new enough and long enough and a QPQ has been provided. In addition for the need to resolve the close paraphrasing, the article could also use a copyedit. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
One final suggestion: as the claim of it being the cleanest lake in Asia is an exceptional claim, and I do not believe that the sources provided are exceptional sources, my suggestion would be to make the statement in the article less definitive. Something like "The Straits Times stated that the lake is reputed..." or wording to that effect. Maybe Launchballer can help out here with the wording and copyediting? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
A possible alternate wording of ALT1, if for whatever reason it does not pass scrutiny, could be something like:
ALT3 ... that prior to allowing outsiders to visit Kayangan Lake, the Tagbanwa tribe performed a ritual to seek permission from nature spirits?
It's much longer than ALT2 and I think ALT2 is still suitable, this is just a backup option. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I will take a look at this when I'm done with Talk:Megan Barton-Hanson/GA1, and I'll get to that when I'm feeling a little more clear-headed. (There's clearly something big there I'm not seeing.)--Launchballer 13:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I am really not liking some of the sources used in this article - Journey Era, Philippinetravels.ph, and Richandsunnytravels.ph are all WP:SPS blogs and Guidetothephilippines.ph is a travel agency. What makes them reliable?--Launchballer 14:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
They're travel websites that give information about the subject. They aren't ideal, but it's often the case that coverage about less well-known Philippine destinations are lacking. As long as they aren't being used to support contentious information, as in what they're saying is uncontroversial and unlikely to be made up, I don't necessarily see them as a problem for DYK purposes. This isn't aiming for FA or even GA. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Having said that, the claim of it being the cleanest lake in Asia is an exceptional claim, and I'm not comfortable with how it is currently presented as a fact in the article. As stated above, my suggestion would be for it to be attributed to the Straits Times, while also making the presentation less definite. If this isn't addressed, I can't see this article running on DYK since that statement will likely be challenged at WT:DYK and/or WP:ERRORS. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
@TheNuggeteer: Please address the concerns raised above; the nomination may be marked for closure if they are not resolved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)


Done, added note. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 13:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, but the attribution to The Straits Times has to be in-text and not a footnote. So the article should say something like "A The Straits Times article called the lake the cleanest in Asia." or something like that, and even, I'm not even sure if the claim would meet scrutiny to other editors. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
@TheNuggeteer and Narutolovehinata5: "Asia's cleanest lake" is a scientific claim, and not one The Straits Times is qualified to make. What even defines "cleanest"? "widely regarded" by scientists, or average people, or who? Hook currently fails verification. Also, are the travel blogs reliable sources? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I see this came up earlier. Launchballer seems to be right under WP:DYKG, which says that all sources cited need to meet a minimum standard of reliability (i.e. can't be self-published). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Note that TLC has removed the "cleanest lake in Asia" claim from the article. However, the issues with sourcing remain. If this isn't resolved soon, the nomination will probably have to be failed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    • I think its safe to say that the "cleanest lake in Asia" hook should be striked out. While I find it interesting, sources vary as other reviewers think above. Clean could be as in, the amount of bacteria, or the dirtiness of it, the amount of trash, the blue/clearness, or even clean enough that its safe to drink it untreated [1] you know what I mean. It's ambiguous. I also note that some work has been done 12 hours after the last comment was added. JuniperChill (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't see an ALT2 on this page and ALT1 needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 10:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • With how long this nomination has been ongoing, with major sourcing issues still present, there doesn't seem to be a path forward for the article at this time. ALT3 is probably the best option and unlike the original "cleanest lake" claims is properly sourced and not exceptional, but with the issues with sourcing, the article can't run on DYK in this state. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ but regardless of the cleanliness, it should still not be drunk without treatment and this is a brackish lake anyway which has salt in it