Template:Did you know nominations/Aubinadong River
- 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 Cielquiparle (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Aubinadong River
- ... that the Aubinadong River (in Ontario, Canada) was an indigenous canoe route and is still being used for canoe camping as the main recreational activity? Source: Ref #1 (Aubinabong River Provincial Park Management Statement, section 3.4)
Created by P199 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Aubinadong River; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
New enough, long enough and within policy as far as I can determine. (Is "indigenous" the accepted wording? I'm unfamiliar with the nomenclature here.) The hook is interesting and supported by what is written in the article and sourced from reliable sources; however each sentence supporting the hook facts needs to be supported by an inline citation. No image, QPQ done. Fix the very minor issue with the citation and this should be good to go. Yakikaki (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks @Yakikaki: for your review. As for citations, let's use some common sense. The info is in a short paragraph of 3 short sentences, with the reference at the end - which is more than obvious that the entire paragraph is based on the same source. Adding inline citations for each sentence only makes sense if different sources were used. Regards, -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply @P199:. It's not me that you have to convince, I agree with you that common sense dictates that this should be let through as it is. However, eligibility criterion 3b (at WP:DYK) states that "Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient. This rule applies even when a citation would not be required for the purposes of the article." Unfortunately, I have been involved in cases before where I let common sense prevail over this rule and the result was that the hook was pulled from the queue and a lot of husstle ensued. So to spare yourself that, I would advice you to add those citations. It's not going to get queued before you do, I'm afraid. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
