Template:Did you know nominations/Furnace Run (Shamokin Creek)
- 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) 05:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Furnace Run (Shamokin Creek)
[edit]... that Furnace Run could benefit from flow augmentation?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Song Puxuan
- Comment: Fairly similar to Template:Did you know nominations/McKee Run, which was well-received earlier this month. ("Flow augmentation" also sounds a bit mysterious and strange.)
Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self-nominated at 16:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC).
Moved in time, well written, long enough, within policy, hook is interesting and cited, and QPQ's done. Good to go. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 02:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I pulled this from p4 as I was unable to confirm the hook from the supplied source. Gatoclass (talk) 07:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Page 64, "Coal Run will be improved in quality, from a mine drainage standpoint, by augmentation of flow in its upper and middle reaches", "64" added to reference. Good old control F! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is an article about Furnace Run, not Coal Run. Gatoclass (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, so please see page 57 : "Through the use of preventive measures, Abatement Plans IV and V would both provide flows of relatively good quality in considerable stretches of watershed streams where these streams presently on the average have little or no flow. Watershed streams in which flows would be augmented include portions of Quaker, Coal, Carbon, and Furnace Runs as well as the North Branch of Shamokin Creek, " The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- That doesn't say Furnace Run would "benefit" from augmented flow either, it just says the Run would get an augmented flow. Gatoclass (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well it depends on your understanding that "flows of relatively good quality" would be achieved with the aforementioned "abatement plans", and such "flows of relatively good quality" would be achieved with the "augmentation" of "portions of ... Furnace Run...". If it's too challenging, I guess it shouldn't be a hook like this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's a bit of a borderline case admittedly. I just felt that the sourcing wasn't sufficiently clear, though I suppose others might legitimately disagree. Certainly, I'd like to see a more unambiguous fact highlighted, assuming one can be found. It's not as if it's a compelling fact to highlight in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- While I agree with the former, the latter is often the case, we are flooded with these kind of DYKs right now, there's little compelling in any of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I apologize for not noticing this sooner; when this was promoted, I took it off my watchlist, which is why I never noticed. Perhaps as an alternate hook, ALT1: ... that the diversion of mine seepage away from Furnace Run in the 1950s reduced the stream's ability to carry away waste? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- While I agree with the former, the latter is often the case, we are flooded with these kind of DYKs right now, there's little compelling in any of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's a bit of a borderline case admittedly. I just felt that the sourcing wasn't sufficiently clear, though I suppose others might legitimately disagree. Certainly, I'd like to see a more unambiguous fact highlighted, assuming one can be found. It's not as if it's a compelling fact to highlight in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well it depends on your understanding that "flows of relatively good quality" would be achieved with the aforementioned "abatement plans", and such "flows of relatively good quality" would be achieved with the "augmentation" of "portions of ... Furnace Run...". If it's too challenging, I guess it shouldn't be a hook like this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- That doesn't say Furnace Run would "benefit" from augmented flow either, it just says the Run would get an augmented flow. Gatoclass (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, so please see page 57 : "Through the use of preventive measures, Abatement Plans IV and V would both provide flows of relatively good quality in considerable stretches of watershed streams where these streams presently on the average have little or no flow. Watershed streams in which flows would be augmented include portions of Quaker, Coal, Carbon, and Furnace Runs as well as the North Branch of Shamokin Creek, " The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is an article about Furnace Run, not Coal Run. Gatoclass (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- I support Captain Assassin's previous review in regards to length, QPQ, neutrality. No copyvios detected. ALT 1 has inline citation, fewer than 200 characters, and is interesting enough. SojoQ (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: struck original hook due to issues noted above. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)