Template:Did you know nominations/North Fork Tangascootack 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 EEng (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

North Fork Tangascootack Creek

(

)

... ~~that all of the named tributaries of North Fork Tangascootack Creek enter it from the left?~~

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Snark sailboat

Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self nominated at 19:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC).

The hook is cited to a bare map -- I have no idea how that supports the hook's statement. EEng (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If you find North Branch Tangascootack Creek on the map and follow its course, you'll see that five named streams enter it from the left – and none from the right. If you're having trouble finding it, I can take a screenshot of the right part of the map for you. --Jakob (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I was afraid the answer would be something like that. I realize this may seem like a harsh policy but this is exactly the sort of thing forbidden by WP:OR. (So that I don't come off as a bad guy, please someone else back me up on this.) Can you find a new hook that comes from one of the sources' text, without having to interpret a map etc.? EEng (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is OR. Even FAC doesn't ban using maps as sources, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)/archive3 where no one complained about the maps. --Jakob (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I would back up DYK expert User:EEng, of course, in his search for a better tributary stream hook here, except that "left" really does depend on which way you're walking? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Flattery gets you only so far, mister. I'm guessing there's some fluviological convention that left/right is viewed as you travel either up- or downstream. Yes, there's a lot of gray area for interpreting maps. It's one thing to say "Map of Ruritania, showing capital city Ruritburg near Rurya River." It's another to count up the tributaries and say all the major ones are shown and that they are all... whatever. If this were a question of article content I'm sure we could figure out if this is a go or no-go, but isn't there some other hook so we can avoid the question? I'd be interested to hear what others think. Maybe I'm off base. EEng (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@EEng: I'll request a 3rd opinion at WP:DYK. BTW, the thing about tributaries entering in from the left uses the same definition as wikt:left bank. If someone else agrees with that the maps aren't good, then ALT 1: ... that near North Fork Tangascootack Creek, the Slaughtering Ground Barrens frequently catch fire? --Jakob (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I had "Left Bank" in mind, but French cuisine gives me gas. Anyway, the problem is OR, and as I said I may be wrong, but... howzabout

ALT2: ... ~~that near North Fork Tangascootack Creek in Clinton County, Pennsylvania, fire likely played an important role in shaping the Slaughtering Ground Barrens Biodiversity Area?~~

(I've added this to the article.) EEng (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

So if we get through a dozen ALT hooks, by adding a sentence each time, we might even get a whole new article section? Why not, I say. But I'm a bit wary of that occult word "likely". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Scientific source says likely -- more study needed. EEng (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, Jeffrey D. Wagner et al qualifies as a scientific source, I'm sure. So good enough. Although, apparently, that description applies to the Slaughtering Ground Barrens BDA. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, isn't that what ALT2 says? EEng (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

ALT2 is great. @EEng: Thanks a lot for coming up with it and adding it into the article. --Jakob (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Will you be paying by cash or credit card? EEng (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I was going to offer my 3rd opinion (my 1st opinion, a 3rd opinion) but I see it isn't necessary. Still, I hate to see the opportunity to give my opinion slip by, so here it is anyway. I think a map would be OK for a reference for a hook, but in this case I don't think the map alone can support the hook: there look to be a least two small tributaries coming from the right-hand side and although they aren't named on this map that may not mean they don't have names; you would need some additional authoritative reference to say that unless a tributary is named on a USGS map it has no name. Belle (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly the kind of problem I had in mind. Can you be the reviewer? EEng (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Long enough, new enough, no copyvio or plagiarism. The original hook I think is dodgy (see above). ALT1 implies that the Slaughtering Ground Barrens only catch fire near the creek when I think what is meant is that the Slaughtering Ground Barrens are located near the creek and often catch fire, ALT2 has the same problem and additionally suffers from containing a quote and having no nice place to start or stop the quote. I think you could reformulate ALT2 fairly easily. A couple of niggles that don't impact DYK directly: I don't think the line that is used for the hook is supported completely by the source so that should probably be removed, and the areas of the watersheds should be converted in line with all the other measurements. Belle (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bellemora: ALT 3: ... that the Slaughtering Ground Barrens, a Biodiversity Area near North Fork Tangascootack Creek frequently catch fire? I've also added the convert template to the watershed areas and added another source to the bit about the tributaries (inspired by this essay. --Jakob (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm striking the original hook because of the leftism problem. I see what you're saying about the nearness. Howzabout:

ALT4 ... that fire likely played an important role in shaping the Slaughtering Ground Barrens Biodiversity Area, near North Fork Tangascootack Creek in Clinton County, Pennsylvania?

EEng (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the ALTs is that they aren't about the creek itself - it might be acceptable if we had an article about the Slaughtering Ground Barrens Biodiversity Area, perhaps, but we don't. Suggested alts:
ALT5 * ... that North Fork Tangascootack Creek in Clinton County, Pennsylvania, has a thriving trout population?
ALT6 * ... that North Fork Tangascootack Creek in Clinton County, Pennsylvania, has a thriving trout population and macroinvertebrate system?
ALT7 * ... that in spite of its location in a mining area, North Fork Tangascootack Creek in Clinton County, Pennsylvania, has a thriving trout population? Gatoclass (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

(For review see above) I'd go with ALT6. ALT3, as Gatoclass points out, is slightly off-topic. ALT4 ditto, and it still suffers from being an unquoted quote (and it has the American usage of likely which makes me grind my teeth). ALT7 strays into synthesis of the sources. ALTs 5 & 6 aren't riveting but "macroinvertebrate system" might be unusual enough to grab a reader's attention. If somebody is inspired to write a really hooky hook before this gets moved to prep, I can come back. Belle (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure, just like Disney, you'll be reelin' 'em in. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I hate to say this but this subject isn't really a font of interesting material. I think ALT6 is as good as it's gonna get. EEng (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

ALT6 to prep1. EEng (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)