Template:Did you know nominations/Carrapateira, Faro

The following discussion 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 Allen3 ^talk 19:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Carrapateira, Faro

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Praia da Bordeira, near Carrapateira, has been cited as one of the best beaches in the Algarve?

Created/expanded by Rosiestep (talk), Dr. Blofeld (talk). Nominated by Dr. Blofeld (talk) at 22:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Date is fine, length (1,483) is a smidgen below the required length, but potentially passable. Some discomfort with the prose composition - a little too-close citation. e.g. "On a ridge of sand near the village are the ruins of a battery erected to protect the inhabitants against the irruptions of the Moors" (given in the text without quotations marks) is actually a direct word-for-word quotation from an 1864 travel guide, given in the present tense, implying those ruins are still there today. And no sense of context or timing.(Moors? How old is this battery?) Is that battery the same 17th C. fort which it proceeds to discuss? The connection is not made clear. The remainder of the paragraph are just closely-translated excerpts from one site (an official Portuguese monument site, probably reliable) with a series of archival facts about the history of the fort. But I wonder about the choice of selection brought over. Is the fact that the cost of repairs was evaluated (it does not quite say reached) in 1765 at $100,000 particularly interesting? It would be better to have chosen the note that by 1792 it was reported to be practically in ruins, to give some better idea of when the fort was decommissioned. Overall, it doesn't quite meet the length as is, and given the close paraphrasing of the wording, both from 1864 guide and the Portuguese website, it doesn't really pass the Rule 2b hurdle for original content length. It would be preferable to give the prose another look and wash.

The hook is a little ostentatious, a claim coming only from one British newspaper travel section, but I suppose passable.  I would prefer it if was supplemented with references from other travel sources, e.g. Michelin gives that beach a star.  

Also, I would prefer it if the title was changed. It gives the misleading impression Carrapateira is in Faro Municipality, which is actually quite far away, practically on opposite ends. I'd prefer it if it was "Carrapateira (Algarve)" ("Algarve" being far better known and common name than "Faro District"). Walrasiad (talk) 06:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The 1864 book is PD and its credited so is freely useable. Its called The Independent a reliable mainstream newspaper which backs up the hook. Length and article should be fine. There are two villages in Algarve with the same name, hence the district suffix.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I know its public domain. And I know Wiki is pretty loose with plagiarized PD sections. The query is whether this close copying counts for the total length (Rule 2b of DYK). I know this is a very small location and it might be hard to find much to say about it. But that whole paragraph could be rewritten in more original prose, and more clearly, without mysterious "Moorish irruptions". The newspaper is the Daily Telegraph website, but these sections are frequently promotional. Supplementing it with more respected travel references (e.g. the Michelin cite above) would help strengthen it.

"Algarve" and "Faro District" are one and the same thing. Like "Brooklyn" and "King's County". Faro District is the official administrative name of the Algarve, which, of couse, nobody really uses or would recognize. If you say "Faro", people assume you mean the municipality. Hence the prospect of confusion (I was confused). If there is another Carrapateira in the Algarve, then it is also in Faro District, so that's not a disambiguator. In that case, you should use the municipality name, Aljezur, as the disambiguator (although the only other Carrapateira I am aware of is in Brazil, so I think "Carrapateira (Algarve)" should be fine). Walrasiad (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note: have just changed "Carrapateira, Faro" to "Carrapateira, Aljezur" to reflect Dr. Blofeld's move of the article per the previous comment. Excluding the number of characters in the PD material reduces the prose count but here does not affect the article's eligibility; however, the change of "irruption" to "interruption" is not a helpful one, as the words may look similar, but the meanings really aren't. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• As the article has just undergone a major revision and expansion by Walrasiad, it needs a new review from a new, impartial reviewer. The PD material is no longer reproduced, so it is not an issue. I have added a DYKmake template for Walrasiad, as credit is due there. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

article fine, well sourced, offline sources accepted AGF. I suggest to start the hook with known things rather than a lot of Portuguese, and added a quote from one of the sources about why it's one of the best:

ALT1 ... that one of the best beaches in the Algarve, "noted for its rugged limestone cliffs and extensive sand dunes", is Praia da Bordeira near Carrapateira? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I personally prefer the original hook, which seems punchier, but ALT1 is acceptable. Good to go either way. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)