Talk:Powder House Island

Did you know nomination

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in 1908, you could "throw a cat through the cracks" of the dynamite shanties on Powder House Island? Source: ref 4, The Federal Reporter
  • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

5x expanded by JPxG (talk). Self-nominated at 22:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC).

• Note: QPQ is done, at Template:Did you know nominations/Academese. jp×g 22:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Article is long enough, was expanded recently enough, and is properly cited. Earwig's shows no copyvio. Good to go. GreatLakesShips (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Promoter's comment: This article has undergone major changes since its promotion on 2 September—in fact, it's ironically undergone a second 5x expansion from 6 September. However, i see no reason to overturn the reviewer's judgement. The article is still sourced, neutral, and original. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P5

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Powder House Island/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 11:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll give this a go. ♦ jaguar 11:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I've read through this article and am content on giving it an outright pass. It is well written, comprehensive and all the references are formatted properly. I couldn't find any issues to raise, except perhaps noticing the lead is a little on the short side, though not too short to prevent it from meeting the criteria. Good work with this one, I enjoyed reading it. ♦ jaguar 15:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Satellite images

1993-04 1999-03 2005-03 2005-08 2005-12 2006-08 2011-06 jp×g 04:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

A tale of two panoramas

Number one (3:1 aspect ratio)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Amherstburg 2 Crystal Island 3 Bois Blanc Island 4 Stony Island 5 Powder House Island 6 Fox Island 7 Sugar Island 8 Grosse Ile

Number two (3:5 aspect ratio)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Lake Erie 2 Amherstburg, Ontario 3 Crystal Island 4 Bois Blanc Island 5 Stony Island 6 Powder House Island 7 Fox Island 8 Sugar Island 9 Grosse Ile 10 Trenton, Michigan

jp×g 02:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Photos of Livingstone Channel construction

Found some here, here, here, here, here,

Outstanding concerns from FAC

The article was promoted as a FA on February 28, 2022, without these comments being resolved/replied. Anyone interested may try to fix these suggestions:

• "It was constructed in the late 1880s" — I would specify 'Island' here, else it appears that 'it' represents the border. Optional suggestion.
• "to the water's edge", "had been shooting with a revolver" — The lead does not makes clear where these quotes comes from.
• "within Grosse Ile Township, in Wayne County, Michigan, in the United States" — why not simplify to "within Grosse Ile Township, Wayne County, Michigan, United States"?
• "audible in St. Clair some 60 mi (97 km) to the north" — I'd replace 'some' with 'approximately'
• Ref#8 has "p. 46" in the source, but you use ":47" in the {{Rp}}
• "represented by Dr. David Inglis" — I don't think we refer to people on Wikipedia by there title, Dr. or Prof.
• Lake Erie, Grosse Ile, Trenton, Bois Blanc Island: linked more than once.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment, @Kavyansh.Singh: @Gog the Mild: Yes, I believe that the fact that the article has attracted 60 edits since going on the Front Page strongly suggests that it needed better copy-editing before being promoted. Abductive (reasoning) 10:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Without wishing to comment on the quality of the article, I note that a recent TFA of one of "my" FAs, the innocent and brief Roman withdrawal from Africa (255 BC), attracted 78 edits; most of which were reverted a few days later. The number of edits a TFA attracts correlates poorly with the article's quality. And bear in mind that "For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria": FAC coordinators judge whether consensus has been reached, not whether they feel that the criteria have been met. We tend to push that boundary if we feel that an article is not up to scratch, but ultimately all we can do to prevent promotion is to recuse ourselves and do a review like any other editor. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the fact that two editors came here to discuss this matter suggests that this FA is quite unusual in this regard. For every person motivated to complain, market research has indicated that about 500 people noticed an issue. so if a manufacturer receives 20 complaints, they typically have to do a recall, or redesign the product. Abductive (reasoning) 23:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)