- 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 Flibirigit (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Columbia University tunnels
A map, created by a student in 1999, of the Columbia University tunnels
Improved to Good Article status by Normsupon (talk). Self-nominated at 00:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC).
- I am reviewing Bruxton (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Approve ATL2 which is verified and interesting. The article is interesting. and was improved to GA on the 24th. It is neutral. The picture is inadequate - so if this runs, I would say no to the map/photo. QPQ is done and the article has the correct inline citations and claims are verified. One thing however is unclear: like radioactivity in the tunnels... one article says it is a myth and another has a student account. This article does not explain the radiation issue clearly yet makes the bold claim in the introduction that tunnels were closed due to "residual radiation". That is not in any of the RS. Finally, most of the opening paragraph is a direct copy and it should be rewritten. In particular this is directly from one reference: "Columbia University has an extensive tunnel system underneath its campus connecting many of its buildings, used by the university as conduits for steam, electricity, telecommunications, and other infrastructure" Bruxton (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Bruxton The claim about the radioactivity in the tunnels has been removed from the lede. As for the first sentence, almost every source I could find that uses that wording appears to be based off of an earlier version of the article. For the sentence you quoted, it's impossible for that exact wording to have been copied from somewhere else, because if you look at the history of the article that phrasing comes from me reworking the previous lede that presumably dates from the late 2000s. Unfortunately, it is a little difficult to tell given that half of the article's history has been wiped due to earlier BLP violations. Normsupon (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Normsupon: Thanks for the message. You can say rumors of radioactivity. Great work on the article. Also: I should let others decide if the photo is sufficient. Bruxton (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Done @Theleekycauldron: Ok with me and it is more interesting. I just verified it with the reference as well. Bruxton (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: That ALT was not interesting to me. I accidentally identified the wrong ALT. I meant to say ALT1 one was interesting and confirmed - - Amelia Earhart - was interesting to me. But there is another ALT agreed upon now that does not include 1 or 2. In addition to that hook not being interesting to me, I could not verify it without the book. I will need to be more careful, and I am thankful for other editors like yourself. Bruxton (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Given that there has been no progress in the nomination in almost two months (!) and given how the GAR appears to be heading towards a delist over issues with the article, it appears that there is no path forward for the nomination at this time. There is no prejudice against renomination if the GAR results in the article's GA status being kept, or if the article is delisted as a GA, being brought back to GA status. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Closing nomination as not successful at this time. If it achieves GA status again, it can be renominated. Flibirigit (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)