Template:Did you know nominations/Mount Churchill
- 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 Lightburst talk 16:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mount Churchill
- ... that Mount Churchill volcano in Alaska distributed ash as far as Europe and may have driven a migration from Canada to southwestern North America?
Improved to Good Article status by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 07:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Mount Churchill; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Which of your DYK-reviews is QPQ for this one?
- The hook is very interesting, but doesn't it need a "that" in front of "Mount Churchill" (or, alternatively, "the volcano Mount Churchill"? Also, I suggest "caused" instead of "driven".
- The hook statement does not seem to be clearly stated in the article. The article only states that a migration happened between the eruption and the arrival of Europeans, but it is not clearly stated (and sourced) that the volcano might have been responsible for this long-distance migration.
- Unrelated to this, I suggest to add the elevation of the volcano to the lead. This is the first thing that many readers want to know when reading about a mountain.
- Something on flora and fauna would have been nice, but optional for GA and DYK of course.
- In conclusion: This is a recent GA; well written with high-quality sources, and comprehensive. No copyvio apparent. Only one image unfortunately, but it is freely licensed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Put the QPQ in (the "reviewed" parameter is for the QPQ not the reviewer); for want of time I usually don't do my QPQs immediately after the article work.
Other Dene people migrated south and east[l] after the eruption
is the text in question and many sources associate the Dene migration with the eruption. There is no information on flora and fauna, probably because the high St. Elias Mountains are well above the vegetation line. There are four elevation estimates and no clear way by which to prioritize. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)- Ok. But I still have two open questions: 1) You state that "Other Dene people migrated south and east[l] after the eruption" is the text in question, but this does not explicitly state that the eruption is responsible (no causality implied), which is the key claim of your hook. 2) If there are several elevation estimates and it is not clear which is to prioritize, why is only one given in the infobox? In that case, all four should appear in the infobox (or none, or a range), but picking only one of those estimates seems arbitrary to me. Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Pulled the infobox claim. For the other, it's in an entire paragraph about how people migrated because of the eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- OK. Passing now, nice work! Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Jens Lallensack, please remember to provide the tick symbol in future when approving nominations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- OK. Passing now, nice work! Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Pulled the infobox claim. For the other, it's in an entire paragraph about how people migrated because of the eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ok. But I still have two open questions: 1) You state that "Other Dene people migrated south and east[l] after the eruption" is the text in question, but this does not explicitly state that the eruption is responsible (no causality implied), which is the key claim of your hook. 2) If there are several elevation estimates and it is not clear which is to prioritize, why is only one given in the infobox? In that case, all four should appear in the infobox (or none, or a range), but picking only one of those estimates seems arbitrary to me. Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
