Template:Did you know nominations/Muncy 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 Victuallers (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Muncy Creek
[edit]
Muncy Creek in Muncy Creek Township
- ... that the discharge of Muncy Creek (pictured) at Muncy can be a thousand times higher than the average discharge of the creek at Sonestown?
Improved to Good Article status by Jakec (talk). Self-nominated at 15:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC).
Article has been newly promoted to GA status, is long enough, within policy and well cited. Duplication Detector bot found no ©-violation. Image is for free use. Hook length is within limit. Hook fact is not referenced. QPQ review is done. --CeeGee 20:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- It most certainly is referenced. The highest recorded discharge of Muncy Creek near Muncy is 46,600 cubic feet (1,320 m3).[8] In 2012 and 2013, the creek's discharge at this location ranged from 29 to 379 cubic feet (0.82 to 10.73 m3).[8] The discharge of the creek at Sonestown averages 44.9 cubic feet per second.[9]. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- The formulation of the hook is different, it is plain text. The hook fact as it appears on the DYK nom is contained in the article, but unreferenced. What is referenced, as you cite above, is not verbatim the hook itself. Can you pls add a ref to the paragraph in the lede so the problem is solved easily. --CeeGee 21:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- It is not a requirement that the hook be found verbatim in the article, just that it be found. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems that this DYK-review goes beyond my experience. Intervention of another reviewer is needed. Sorry. --CeeGee 05:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the hook. It's dealing with a mathematical calculation (46,600 cubic feet per second is more than one thousand times higher than 44.9 cubic feet per second) for which each figure is adequately cited in the article. It's the same as extrapolating different details from a bio or a history article and writing a clever hook that is not stated outright in the article, but can be seen from the facts. I tweaked the hook from "up to a thousand times" to "a thousand times" – it's actually more than a thousand times, but that's adequate. Rest of review per CeeGee. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
