Talk:Sams Creek (New Zealand)

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Sams Creek from the Cobb Road bridge

... that the area around Sams Creek (pictured) was excluded from Kahurangi National Park when it was formed in 1996 due to gold mining interests?

Source: At the northern end of the park, Macraes Mining successfully stood their paydirt at Sam's Creek... The exclusion of their 4000 ha gold prospecting clairm remains controversial.

ALT1: ... that the area around Sams Creek (pictured) was excluded from Kahurangi National Park when it was formed due to gold mining interests? Source: same
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Haifisch
Comment: There's much more that can be said about Sams Creek with regards to the ongoing mining proposals. But the article qualifies as is.

Moved to mainspace by Schwede66 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 165 past nominations.

Schwede 66 08:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image eligibility:

Freely licensed:
Used in article:
Clear at 100px: - Not particularly clear or interesting to a general audience.

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Looks good to go; prefer ALT1, as the year of creation has some relevance (being so recent) but is not crucial. Sounder Bruce 03:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SounderBruce, for your review. That's much appreciated. Would this image be better in your view? If so, we can use that in the article and here instead. If not, that's all good. Schwede 66 03:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the uncropped version is better, but I feel there's not a strong case for either to be used as the hook image. Sounder Bruce 03:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we’ll leave it the way it is. Schwede 66 08:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]