Template:Did you know nominations/Marsh Creek (Bowman 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Repromoting nomination now that satisfactory review has been done and documented
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Marsh Creek (Bowman Creek)
[edit]- ... that Marsh Creek is "tiny", but is one of the major tributaries of Bowman Creek?
Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self-nominated at 13:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC).
Article is not new enough. Last substantial edit was 29SEP. Edits in last 7 days have not expanded it enough to qualify for DYK. LavaBaron (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I moved it to mainspace only four days ago, on the seventh. Please check these things more carefully.
--Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Please list review details, as a courtesy to the nominator, especially if meant to be used as a QPQ. Please don't leave room for this being pulled from promotion because of inadequate review. The above does not seem like anything specific was checked. — Maile (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for checking-in; Jakob didn't express to me he felt I was being discourteous and not being used as a QPQ. Good to go! LavaBaron (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Review by Maile
-
- QPQ done by Jakec October 11, 2015
- Eligibility
- Article moved from User:Jakec/Marsh Creek (Bowman Creek) on October 7, 2015 and contains 4036 characters (0 words) "readable prose size"
- Article is NPOV, currently stable, no edit wars, no dispute tags
- Hook, Sourcing and copyvio check
- Every paragraph sourced
- No bare URLs, and no external links used as inline sources
- Earwig's copyvio detector show no issues of concern: Earwig's tool results
- Hook is fine at 79 characters, NPOV, sourced and stated in the article.
- Image
- No image in either the hook or the article.
@BlueMoonset: I have temporarily reverted the close on this template in order to insert a correct review, so as to lessen the possibility of any later questions that this nomination was actually reviewed. What exists above my review does not meet DYK criteria for a review. BlueMoonset, could you please close this nomination and move this hook from where it's holding, to on up to an available slot.— Maile (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)