Template:Did you know nominations/Endangered 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Endangered river
[edit]
Dry bed of Rio Grande in Big Bend National Park.
... that endangered rivers include the Danube, the Rio Grande, and the Nile?Source: "WWF"- ALT1:
... that endangered rivers face natural and man-made threats?Source: as above
- ALT1:
Created by Violetriga (talk). Self-nominated at 19:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC).
Interesting topic, on few but good sources, no copyvio obvious. In the hook I'd mention that it's accoding to a certain list, or mention the organization that published it. - Please try to end each paragraph with an ref. - Wishes for the article:
- any image, illustrating a river in bad condition?
- separation of natural and man-made influences?
- mention key threats in the lead?
- omit "See also" - which does nothing for me?
- Striking ALT1 as I think everybody will knw that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Right - I've had the time to go back and get some more expansions in. Thanks for your thoughts. I think that ALT0 is okay but here's an option for the promoter to consider:
- ALT0a: ... that a report by the World Wildlife Fund highlights endangered rivers including the Danube, the Nile, and the Rio Grande (pictured dry)?
- Thanks, violet/riga [talk] 17:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, much better. How about alpha order of the rivers in the hook? I'd take the Big Bend image for the lead. Consider linking the rivers in the image captions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- All good now, thanks. violet/riga [talk] 22:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the image, licensed an a good illustration. I shortened the caption a bit and added a pictured-clause. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- All good now, thanks. violet/riga [talk] 22:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Right - I've had the time to go back and get some more expansions in. Thanks for your thoughts. I think that ALT0 is okay but here's an option for the promoter to consider:
I have pulled this from the queue as the url to which the hook is cited has expired. Please fix. Gatoclass (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- How is this instead, https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2007-01/worldstop10riversatrisk.pdf ? (in the article) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Unfortunately Gerda, I don't think that is sufficient as that report is more than ten years old, I think you would need something more recent to support the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- I am only the reviewer trying to help. violet/riga, any better offer? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- My thanks and apologies Gerda - I have only just thought about checking this. I would suggest that we go back to ALT1 - it's less hooky but at least it isn't a dated claim. violet/riga [talk] 22:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- A few more thoughts:
- Perhaps ALT2:
... that some endangered rivers may dry up before reaching their destination? - ALT3:
... that the Citarum River in Indonesia has been labelled as an endangered river because of significant pollution? (not appropriate with the current image but there is a potential one in the article). - ALT4: ... that the Rio Grande has been labelled as an endangered river because it sometimes runs dry (pictured)?
- Perhaps ALT2:
- violet/riga [talk] 22:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt:: sorry for causing you additional work on this. violet/riga [talk] 00:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- thank you, prefer ALT4, as with the best image, - the Citarum doesn't show well in small size. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- I am only the reviewer trying to help. violet/riga, any better offer? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Unfortunately Gerda, I don't think that is sufficient as that report is more than ten years old, I think you would need something more recent to support the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- I have had to pull this from prep again because the hook statement does not appear in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- I blame my lack of English. It's not in the literal wording, but implied, no? (Combination of "... is one which has the potential to partly or fully dry up, or one that is thought to have ecological issues now or in the near future." and "After leaving El Paso the Rio Grande often runs dry because so much water has been diverted away for human use.") It's even pictured. What would satisfy you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's implied, yes, but that's not enough for some folks, it's the kind of thing that can get a hook pulled from the main page, so whatever hook is decided upon, it will need to be explicitly stated in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- It is best to for-see and prevent issues rather than have to deal with the fallout so thanks for that Gatoclass. I have clarified in the lead about the Rio Grande, stating that part of it "often lies dry". Hopefully that will suffice. violet/riga [talk] 20:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass: - has this DYK been orphaned? I can't see it anywhere on DYK according to What Links Here. violet/riga [talk] 16:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- It is best to for-see and prevent issues rather than have to deal with the fallout so thanks for that Gatoclass. I have clarified in the lead about the Rio Grande, stating that part of it "often lies dry". Hopefully that will suffice. violet/riga [talk] 20:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's implied, yes, but that's not enough for some folks, it's the kind of thing that can get a hook pulled from the main page, so whatever hook is decided upon, it will need to be explicitly stated in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- I blame my lack of English. It's not in the literal wording, but implied, no? (Combination of "... is one which has the potential to partly or fully dry up, or one that is thought to have ecological issues now or in the near future." and "After leaving El Paso the Rio Grande often runs dry because so much water has been diverted away for human use.") It's even pictured. What would satisfy you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
New reviewer needed to make absolutely sure that ALT4 is fully supported by both the article wording and the cited sourcing. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've taken a look at the National Parks Service reference, and it confirms the hook fact (although it seems to mention the riverbed of the Rio Grande as opposed to the Rio Grande itself). Restoring tick and approving ALT4. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)