Template:Did you know nominations/Hyperloop pod competition

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 Jolly Ω Janner 03:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hyperloop pod competition

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that SpaceX prize accelerates Hyperloop from "hype" to prototypes?

• ALT1:... that SpaceX prize moves Hyperloop from "hype" to prototypes?
• ALT2:... that Hyperloop designs are accelerating to prototypes for SpaceX prize?
• ALT3:... that SpaceX facilitates Hyperloop design winners' prototype competition?
• ALT4:... that a SpaceX prize accelerates Hyperloop from hype to prototypes?
• ALT5:... that a SpaceX prize moves Hyperloop from hype to prototypes?

Created by N2e (talk). Self-nominated at 18:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC).

• This article is new enough and long enough. It is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. I'm not sure about any of the proposed hooks however. The article does not talk of the Hyperloop being "hype" which means a "form of promotion consisting of exaggerated claims". The Hyperloop is theoretically possible but not necessarily economically viable and this competition seems an excellent means of testing the proposed transport system. I would suggest something like
• ALT6:... that the SpaceX prize moves Hyperloop from concept to prototype? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cwmhiraeth! for taking a look. But actually, "hype" is directly addressed with a sourced statement in the article. That statement is this one:

Responses to the design paper release included: "a flash of brilliance" and "hypercool" to "nothing new here" to "hype", "another science-fiction dream," and "completely impractical."

Note that both the Dodson source, used to cite the "nothing new here" claim in the statement, and the third source ("Wolverton"), used specifically to cite the word "hype" in the article prose, use the word "hype" in the source headline.

So take a look, and see if that is sufficient. If not, a reference to the several who dismissed this as "hype" when first proposed could be done in the lede, if that would be better.

Cheers, N2e (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Well yes, I did see that, and hype is one of the varying views on the project. But your hooks make it sound as if it is the only one, and the existence of the prize and the large numbers of entrants in the competition demonstrates that the idea is scientifically feasible and more than just hype. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'll offer a few more thoughts.

1. Your sentence about "the existence of the prize and the large numbers of entrants ..." rather makes the point. Exactly! It is the 2015-16 contest (outlined in the Hyperloop pod competition article) that rather puts to rest the many claims of blue-sky hype that were made about the original idea (outlined in the Hyperloop article).
2. Just think on the time dimension here. Hyperloop was very widely considered to be blue-sky hype by a large number of observers back in 2012 when it was proposed. Not exclusively, but widely. The current contest is, indeed, putting evidence to counter those claims. It is a bit presentist to argue that the existence of the contest (and many responses) in 2016 is proof of why the concept in 2012 was not thought (by many) to be hype.
3. On DYK in general: I am very much less familiar with WP DYK than you. But as a (still, fairly) newbie to the DYK process, it seems the point of DYK is to have a verifiably true hook that is hook-ish enough to draw in the reader and let them be surprised by the article itself. I think the "hype to prototype" hooks do that, and meet those criteria. Definitely more "grabby" to the reader than "concept to prototype".
4. The phrase "hype to prototype" refers to the way in which the views of others (not Elon Musk) have shifted from the 2012 skepticism to the validation and credibility given by engineers and engineering students, incentivized by the contest. The phrase "concept to prototype" embodies a shift from Elon Musk's view, a concept, to others adopting that same view in order to build prototypes. Whichever you choose, I'm only pointing out that they are not equivalent.

Having said all that. As the editor who has built a good bit of the Hpc article, and a bit of the original H article, and the editor who did the DYK nomination with the rationale of #3 above, I'll stand down now and just let this go where it goes, and let other editors who take it from here be the determining voices. Whether it goes forward, and with what hooks, I firmly leave in the hands of the great emergent process of bottom-up growth on wiki. Thanks for your efforts here. And Cheers to all. N2e (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• There are several problems with this article, as noted by various maintenance tags. Please address the issues raised in those tags.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 18:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixed—all the maintenance tags have been dealt with. N2e (talk) 23:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Much better now, but I propose a new hook. Currently, I don't think many people will be familiar with the hyperloop concept. So perhaps we can do this?

ALT7... that Elon Musk's SpaceX is holding a competition to see who can build the best tube travelling device? —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 13:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the fixed article (with those maintenance tags cleared up).

As for the ALT7 hook, I think the "hype" to prototypes locution is much more enticing as a hook (ALT1/ALT4/ALT5), and as shown, is supported in the article, and is what has happened/is happening with this competition. However, as I said above, I'll let other editors debate/approve the go-forward plan on this. N2e (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• We still need someone to look at this.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 21:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• Just starting over since I can't figure out what has been checked or not given all the discussion and changes above. Article was new enough at the time of submission. It is long enough and has no policy issues. Meets neutrality and sourcing. I like ALT5 the best as it is the most interesting (to me, anyway, as it made me go find out what a hyperloop was). Hook is sourced and neutral. QPQ not needed as far as I can tell (only 4 previous noms). ALT5 looks good to go. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)