Template:Did you know nominations/Galveston Bay
- 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 The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Galveston Bay, Estuaries of Texas
- ... that Galveston Bay (pictured), the largest of the estuaries of Texas, is home to the second busiest port in the United States? Source: "In terms of overall tonnage, the port is No. 2 in the country behind New Orleans." ([1])
- ALT1:... that Galveston Bay (pictured), the largest of the estuaries of Texas, produces more seafood than any estuary in the United States except the Chesapeake? Source: "Galveston Bay is the nation's second most productive estuary." ([2])
Improved to Good Article status by Bryanrutherford0 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- I am not seeing the hook mentioned in Estuaries of Texas. - Interesting:
QPQ: 
- Need a second QPQ since this is a dual nomination
Overall: 
You need a second QPQ. Hook is not referenced in second article unless I am missing something. But I prefer the first hook because of the wordiness of the second. KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- I still need a second QPQ even though it's just one hook? Sorry, I've never tried a multi-article nomination before. The entire content of the hook has to be present and cited in every one of the articles? Well, screw it, then; the second nomination is withdrawn, and this is just for Galveston Bay. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, you would need a second QPQ for a double nomination. No, the hook facts do not have to be present in both articles. So, if you want to restore this as a double, you'll have to supply another QPQ. Or, you may start a separate nomination for the second article (although with the current glut of nominations, a single double would be preferred to two singles). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification! I've added a second QPQ, so I guess let's go ahead with the double nomination here per your recommendation. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- User:Mandarax that is not how it has been in the past. I have done a couple of dual or triple nomination and the hook had to be in all the articles nominated. KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- That is how it's always been. If you were informed otherwise in your previous nominations, then the reviewers were mistaken. This has been discussed many times at WT:DYK, including: WT:Did you know/Archive 78#Clarification about double nominations, WT:Did you know/Archive 92#Hook for double-entries, WT:Did you know/Archive 94#Hook-fact in multi-hooks, and WT:Did you know/Archive 156#DYK hooks with multiple bolded articles. For some extreme examples, check out the entries in the WP:Did you know/Multiple Article Hook Hall of Fame. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- User:Mandarax that is not how it has been in the past. I have done a couple of dual or triple nomination and the hook had to be in all the articles nominated. KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification! I've added a second QPQ, so I guess let's go ahead with the double nomination here per your recommendation. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, you would need a second QPQ for a double nomination. No, the hook facts do not have to be present in both articles. So, if you want to restore this as a double, you'll have to supply another QPQ. Or, you may start a separate nomination for the second article (although with the current glut of nominations, a single double would be preferred to two singles). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Well I will make a note of this next time as precedent for my own but just noting the fact that these current nominations below still hold onto this idea. Also there is the issue of the image not used in the both articles. Maybe it should be specifically cited in the reviewing criteria if that is the case from now also if both hooks or images need to be used in both nominations.
Second QPQ done. AGF on the other issues. KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)