Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Abseil rack

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Narutolovehinata5 talk 16:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Abseil rack

(
)
Created by Kingsmasher678 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC).

  • General eligibility:
  • New enough: No - The article was first created February 17th, but discounting a one-line stub that was made then it was pubished February 25th. I am not sure if this meets the newness requirement or not.
  • Long enough: Yes

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - Neither hook seems to adequately be cited by the source(s) in question. For ALT0, there seems to be no indication that rappel racks have "excellent" heat dissipation, only that more recent designs have better dissipation than older models that have poor dissipation. For ALT1, I couldn't find this claim in the source. The closest seems to be this: "Before 1956, people suffered with body rappels. In the next decade, many new ideas appeared. Since 1966, there has been no real progress in rappelling." Sourcing issued addressed for ALT2.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: The article is interesting, but requires more work before it is eligible for WP:DYK. After that, I am inclined to request a second opinion on whether or not the article is eligible to be submitted for DYK given the date the article was first created. --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sky Harbor:I think that I have corrected the problems now. If possible I would like to change the hook to "some cavers prefer the rappel rack for it's excellent heat dissipation?" Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Kingsmasher678. I see the open WP:CITE tag has been addressed, which is great, but for your proposed hook (ALT2), where in the sources is this indicated so I can vet it? --Sky Harbor (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Sky Harbor that would be in reference 4. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
I still don't see how the source supports that hook, Kingsmasher678. This is the same source that you used to back up ALT0, and I did not see anything in the source that indicated that rappel racks are preferred for excellent heat dissipation, but I may be reading the source incorrectly. I would appreciate it if you could point me to the specific instance in the source that points to your claim since I can't seem to find it; the source seems to point out how alternatives to rappel racks have poor heat dissipation, as opposed to rappel racks having "excellent" heat dissipation. --Sky Harbor (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Ok, I have found another source for this, though I do feel that that is a fair extrapolation from the source provided. The new source should be in place now. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Alternatively, change to "above average heat dissipation" which is certainly supported by the sources.Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
To answer Sky Harbor's question: the article was not eligible as a new article. It does not matter if the original article was created as a short stub: once the article is created, the seven-day count starts ticking. However, it could be accepted as a 5x expansion, as a 5x expansion began on February 25 and was nominated on the 28th. I have no opinion on the rest of the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I don't believe that is correct. I had the article moved from userspace on the 25th. This is explicitly addressed inWP:DYKNEW. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
For some reason it wasn't showing up as such on DYKcheck for me. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
I think that's because of the usurpation, Narutolovehinata5. I don't know if the user page was created on the 17th or the 25th, but I'm inclined to believe that the page itself was created on the 17th, then Kingsmasher678 created a userspace page and had the two merged on the 25th. How is that situation addressed in the DYK guidelines?
The page existed as a redirect, and I created a userspace page on the 17th. I had that page moved to mainspace on the 25th. I had to have a page mover do it so the page editing history from my userspace followed the page. So it was created, as the rules read, on the 25th. Regardless, I expanded 5x anyway, so it's a moot point. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
As for the review itself, I think the sourcing issue has been resolved so that has been marked accordingly, but the newness issue remains. I think a 5x expansion would work though if the newness guideline hasn't been met. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
In cases of usurpation, the rules are silent, but I imagine it's still the original creation date that is considered the actual creation date regardless of any history merges, in which case 5x expansion is really the way to go here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Given that, and given that the sourcing issue has been resolved, I think this nomination is good to go as a 5x expansion. --Sky Harbor (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
Only reference 3 and 5 aren't self-published. Please check for that because it wastes time otherwise. SL93 (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
While they are self-published, the vertical museum in paticular is maintained by Dr. Gary Storrik, who has written extensively for the NSS news. He is likely the best informed person in the world when it comes to the history of Single rope technique and its general development. He was also given a certificate of merit by the NSS for this work. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
@Kingsmasher678, Sky Harbor, Narutolovehinata5, and SL93: Is this approved? If not, what else needs to be done?--Launchballer 16:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
There are still concerns with the SPS sources and whether or not those sources meet the subject expert exception. The nomination has technically already timed out, but if those are the only concerns and the article is otherwise good to go, and the concerns are addressed, then this shouldn't be closed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·

contributions) 01:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I've addressed the concerns to the limit of my interest in doing so. Gary Storrick is as reliable a source as your are likly to find for this stuff. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
You have not addressed the other SPS sources. SL93 (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
As this is more than two months old I am timing it out. I'm very sorry.--Launchballer 14:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Wish you had waited a bit because I was working on this, but for what it's worth, I've cleaned up or justified the self published sources. The ukcaving is similar to Storrick. It is a solid source of factual infomation in this field. I thought that this was accepted a month ago, which is why I stopped responding. Sorry for my snappy comment earlier. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer and SL93: I'm about to close this per DYKTIMEOUT, but just to verify before I do so: what exactly is wrong with the sourcing of the article, and have the SPS issues really not been addressed? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Looking at the sources myself, 1, 2, and 4 seem to be WP:EXPERTSPS and the rest seem fine unless I'm missing something. This should be good to go now.--Launchballer 03:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Haven't heard back from SL93 so I'm restoring the tick and allowing this to proceed. If he still has issues with the article then he can bring them up at WT:DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 I have no issues. The nominator removed the problematic sourcing and a chunk of the article without updating here. SL93 (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • I also have problems with the sourcing. It's OK to include the occasional WP:EXPERTSPS but too much of this article depends on them. As WP:SPS says, Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Given that this barely crosses the 1500 character bar and it's been kicking around for 2 months, I suggest we reject this. RoySmith (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Not to mention WP:CLOP. Here's two examples. Not huge in terms of absolute word count, but for an article this small, it's a significant fraction of the text:
    Instead of the pressure from the rope keeping the bars closed, it forces them open, releasing the rack
    This occurs when the rope is threaded in such a way that the rope forces the bars open, instead of holding them closed.
    Racks were made independently by American cavers John W. Cole and Warren Lewis, both in 1966
    the modern rack was developed independently by both John Cole and Warren Lewis, who both released their designs in 1969.
I would say there is not much else you could do to display that information besides sentences similar to those. I think that the article is interesting, the hook is good, and the sources are as good as can be found, because believe me I have spent hours looking. I mean, not every piece of information has been published by an organization. The sources I chose are the ones that weren't forums or blogs, but rather experts putting the information they collect on display. I can't do better then this, so someone make a decision so this can stop sucking up my time. I'm sorry if this come off a little abrupt, but it's been frustrating for this to drag on as long as it has. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
This nomination is already long past time out and outstanding issues remain, so I'm closing this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Abseil_rack&oldid=1288760081"